Ten minutes before we sat down to record this week's episode, the Pritzker Prize Laureate was announced – posthumously. The winner, Frei Otto (1925 - 2015), was a German architect whose impressive work and research with lightweight and sustainable structures influenced countless architects through the 20th century to today. Otto was informed of the prize before his death in Germany this past Monday, March 9, prompting the Pritzker committee to make the formal announcement the day after.
This episode, we reflect on Otto's remarkable life and the Prize's announcement in the midst of his passing. We also examine the uncertain fate (and value) of Frank Gehry's Winton Guest House, which will be up for sale on May 19, and consider whether architects should shoulder the cultural and emotional weight of deciding how we bury our dead.
And on the heels of Google's announcement that BIG will collaborate with Heatherwick Studios on their campus expansion, Amelia spoke with curator Brooke Hodge in her office at the Cooper Hewitt, about bringing Heatherwick to an American audience with her "Provocations: The Architecture and Design of Heatherwick Studio" exhibition, currently on view at the Hammer Museum through May 24.
We're also happy to announce that this episode is sponsored by BQE ArchiOffice – our first podcast sponsor!
As always, you can send us your architectural legal issues, comments or questions via twitter #archinectsessions, email or call us at (213) 784-7421. And if you can, we'd love for you to rate us on iTunes or Stitcher!
Listen to episode twenty of Archinect Sessions, "Three Funerals and a Curator":
Shownotes:
Mary Roach's Stiff
AIA's Grassroots 2015
Jackson Hole, WY airport, designed by Gensler:
Never Too Young; 15 Librarian-Recommended Architecture Books for Young Children
45 Comments
Eerie... Michael Graves RIP
I know! We named the episode before we heard about Michael Graves' death!
Re: Gehry: A pretty much disposable building done solely for vanity (both the architect's and the client's) sets a very low bar for preservation. Much better buildings by much better architects have been torn down. Also, if you're going to discuss my commentary, the least you could do is address at least some of the issues I raised (proportion, materiality, randomness) before dismissing my judgment (teardown). Granted that particular thread was difficult to read, largely due to the failure of the administration to enforce any kind of behavioral standard here. But that is no excuse.
Comparisons with Picasso are absurd. Architecture is not art, but the craft of design. Gehry and Picasso don't belong on the same page, let alone the same sentence.
Getting on to experimentation, sure it's fun. We love to sketch dramatic forms, but the real responsibility of architecture is performance - human factors, programmatic functions, comfort, sustainability, durability, etc., which is largely missing from this guest house (and a great deal of architecture produced today). The kind of worship lavished on Gehry - where everything he touched has some kind of magical resonance, like some kind of movie star - is wholly undeserved.
Why not Zaha or H&D or Rem? It's all the same and all subjective. Time to find a more objective or at least definable measure.
You know why I never addressed them, well you know.
Because it didn't suit your purpose?
Pretty much any building worth saving was done for vanity, so what the hell are you talking about? From Giza to Chartres, Acropolis to Fallingwater alllllll were completed for vanity sake.
As if that is a measure of greatness. Oh, even coffins leak. In fact I propose that anything constructed by man will leak at some time, so stop it already.
As if that is a measure of greatness.
Exactly. Got anything else? And yes, Falling Water was a 7 bucket building. Nothing is absolute, and it's all subjective.
So, let me see if I got you right, your first comment about the guest house is teardown, and I'm supposed to read through your posting contest, to find interesting and thoughtful criticism? I turned you off after teardown. What is your experience of the folly, have you been in the building when it was moved to St. Thomas? It turns out that Gehry's client liked the building, but we should defer to your opinion, I'm going to die with Gehry and his client, the one who paid for the work. As for random, I don't know what to say, other than to put that comment in the who gives a shit box. Asking for an explanation and getting one is not likely to dissuade you anyway. As for materiality, Donna addressed that point, and because you don't like the material finish doesn't invalidate the experimentation.
Also it would seem much of your criticism has a lot to do with a building that was relocated and likely not cared for but the institution the way the original client would have.
Sustainability? Really? How many of the wealthy clients your dad designed for, out in the Hamptons, were concerned about sustainability?
Zero. Which didn't prevent him from being recognized by the state AIA for a passive solar design community that wasn't. Which is only one of the reasons I make every possible effort to move clients in the direction of sustainability and real performance.
The posting contest issue has already been addressed, and I did not ask you to defer to anything. You don't like my opinion? Fine. But the least you could do is recognize the clearly posted thought behind it whether you like it or not, especially when you go to such great lengths to denigrate it in the podcast. I assumed you'd have more depth than the people who crapped on me in that thread.
Your comments here the same as your comments on the podcast. You picked a single point and ignored the rest. Picasso, building performance, the culture of starchitecture, all are irrelevant because they challenge your opinion. Then you tried to twist my father's practice into some kind of denigration of my comments. That's brilliant.
The respect for Gehry is not "totally undeserved", Miles. He's earned that respect through a long career of truly iconoclastic work that nevertheless managed to be not only accepted but celebrated. You don't like his work, fine. You're not alone. But many other people do like his work, and for good reasons.
My opinion of Gehry is as valid anyone's. But there's no way you would know that judging by the knee jerk response to it, ranging from righteous indignation to outright insults.
If we want to talk about Gehry maybe we can all learn something from the exchange. But as stated elsewhere the reasoned response to 'teardown' isn't fuck you but damn right, no, or why? That's the start of a discussion.
Donna, we had some really interesting discussion about the Portland Building, with mutual respect despite views that are pretty well opposed. Too bad that hasn't happened here.
I don't understand why you're acting so butthurt over this, Miles. You tossed out a snarky, irresponsible comment. Others replied in kind. In between all of that, some reasonable discussion about preservation, craft, the arc of a career, and the role of the guest house in architectural culture all happened.
FYI Teardown wasn't snarky (which means sarcastic).
So much for interesting discussion with mutual respect.
And that wasn't sarcastic, it was sardonic.
Get back on your meds. You dish out just as much crap to others as you get. Butthurt is now part of my lexicon.
snark·y (snär′kē)
adj. snark·i·er, snark·i·est Slang
1. Rudely sarcastic or disrespectful; snide.
2. Irritable or short-tempered; irascible.
[From dialectal snark, to nag, from snark, snork, to snore, snort, from Dutch and Low German snorken, of imitative origin.]
snark′i·ly adv.
American Heritage® Dictionary of the English Language, Fifth Edition. Copyright © 2011 by Houghton Mifflin Harcourt Publishing Company. Published by Houghton Mifflin Harcourt Publishing Company. All rights reserved.
As for the comment about your father's work, it had nothing to do with his work, which is brilliant, it so with you and your inability to hold the same value Gehry's as you'd hold for your father's.
Maybe this is just some Tupac vs. Biggie thing?
Still Life isn't random.
"With this idea in mind, Gehry was further inspired by the work of the artist Giorgio Morandi. Morandi, an Italian painter, was known for his still life paintings of bottles, boxes, cups, and vases. Gehry linked this artistic “clutter” to the one room building concept, seeing Morandi’s work as a “village of bottles.[4]” It took four years to settle on the final design, but when he finally did, Gehry noted that it “may be construed as a large, outdoor sculpture.” No windows or doors faced the main house on the property (designed by Philip Johnson), and the house had no base or plinth, making it seem, as Penny Winton wrote to Gehry, “as a great giant sculpture pressed into the ground.”"
Beware the wrath of the fanboys! LOL The foundation must be pretty unstable if a single word can do so much damage.
My father did some truly awful houses, not nearly as bad as the Gehry guest hose but pretty bad nonetheless. But he also did some pretty good ones, mostly before 1975.
re: discussion about the Urban Death Project, BBC News just published a piece today re: how The world is running out of burial space. Apparently one "green" technique that some people are proposing to deal with this is resomation.
Based on the description it sounds like resomation compared to the Urban Death Project would provide less opportunity for ritual/ceremony etc... Also lacking the communal aspect.
googled it...here is your mascot at the airport.
Ha! Nice one Olaf. Here's my photo of our mascot bidding us farewell...
Ken, in this episode you asked for someone to point out where an architect's standard agreement with the owner says we should design a building that doesn't leak. I give you the following:
AIA B101-2007 Standard Form of Agreement between Owner and Architect; Article 3.1.5: "[...] In designing the Project, the Architect shall respond to applicable design requirements imposed by such governmental authorities [...]"
In this case we will look at the International Building Code, adopted by many "governmental authorities" as necessary requirements for building design and construction:
IBC 2015 Chapter 14 Exterior Walls; Section 1403.2 Weather Protection: "Exterior walls shall provide the building with an weather-resistant exterior wall envelope. [...] The exterior wall envelope shall be designed and constructed in such a manner as to prevent the accumulation of water within the wall assembly [...]"
IBC 2015 Chapter 15 Roof Assemblies and Rooftop Structures; Section 1503.1 General: "[...] Roof coverings shall be designed and installed in accordance with this code and the approved manufacturer's instructions such that the roof covering shall serve to protect the building or structure." Section 1503.2 Flashing: "Flashing shall be installed in such a manner so as to prevent moisture entering the wall and roof through joints in copings, through moisture-permeable materials and at intersections with parapet walls and other penetrations through the roof plane."
It would seem that it is indeed the Architect's responsibility to the Owner to provide them with a design that does not leak. As for what happens after the design is accepted and the documents are used to establish the Contract Documents with which the Contractor is to build the design ... back to the Agreement:
AIA B101-2007 Standard Form of Agreement between Owner and Architect; Article 3.6.2.1: "The Architect shall visit the site [...] to become generally familiar with the progress and quality of the portion of the Work completed, and to determine, in general, if the Work observed is being performed in a manner indicating that the Work, when fully completed, will be in accordance with the Contract Documents. [...]" Article 3.6.2.2: "The Architect has the authority to reject Work that does not conform to the Contract Documents. [...]"
You were correct in stating that the Contractor has control of means and methods of construction. However, that doesn't relieve the Architect of their responsibility to design a building that doesn't leak and ensure it gets built correctly. Means and methods can't fix a flawed design. Yes, you can expect that not everything will be perfect in the construction process and that sometimes despite all the best intentions, buildings will leak.
I would give a reasonable amount of leeway to an Architect for leaks that occur outside of their scope (read, the roofer dropped a hammer and punctured a membrane). However, some architects seem to keep designing buildings that leak. It may be because of their design ... it may be because of the difficulty in constructing their design ... it may be because they don't know how to properly draw the non-standard details that make it harder for the Contractor to understand how to build their designs ... it may be because they aren't visiting the project often enough to verify the Contractor is building their designs properly.
In the end these are all problems that come back to the Architect's responsibility. If an Architect's buildings keep leaking despite their best intentions, they may want to figure out how to keep the water out of their buildings.
Everyday, I reject your argument on it's face. For a few reasons, the contract yes, does state that, but it's a simplistic reading of the document, assuming that Gehry and others use B101. I mean, do you really think that Gehry would intentionally design a building that leaks, or believe that his office would intentionally mis-lead the contractor, and not provide them with accurate details? That would be completely negligent. I've seen the documentation that comes out that office, it's far from negligent.
As I've noted in the episode, this is a team process, and the contract citations bear that out; "designed AND installed", "designed AND constructed". Every single building ever constructed, ever, has been built by human hands, and humans, until they reach deity status, are uniquely flawed, and hence what they construct, will be flawed.
The architect may be responsible for the design, but she is not beholden to perfection, and we have state boards to decide whether or not a design is completed to the best practices of the locality in which it is designed.
I don't think Gehry intentionally creates leaky designs, nor do I think his teams intentionally mislead contractors. But that was not your question.
You asked for someone to point out where the architect has the responsibility to design a building with no leaks. The code is clear. Architects are required to design to code. Stick your head in the sand if you wish and ignore it, but the next time an architect gets sued for a leaky building, don't say they don't have any skin in the game because it was flawed humans that designed and built it.
Do your clients really buy into that argument? Do you let them know you accept no responsibility for errors and omissions when you've stamped the drawings? What is the state board that will accept responsibility for a flawed design when you won't? Please tell me you don't think a local design review board has any liability for errors when they approve a design.
Everyday, you should quote me accurately too. I said; "if someone can point me to, in the AIA contracts, where the architect is responsible for means and methods, and for construction..." this was in relation to the Winton house, and the taking apart of, and reassembly of, the Winton house on the St. Thomas site.
Means and methods are the responsibility the contractor. Designing a building is the responsibility of the architect. Yes, even buildings I design have details, and those details are within the best and accepted practices of MN. E&O insurance is for "perceived" negligence, and is typically used as a tool by clients for all the wrong reasons. I mean your first paragraph you state you don't think he intentionally designed a building that would leak, but that's what negligence is, "A failure to behave with the level of care that someone of ordinary prudence would have exercised under the same circumstances." You wouldn't that Gehry was negligent in his detailing of the Winton house, or MIT Stata? Given this it would seem most of the liability for Stata was laid at the feet of the contractor's failure to follow the details per Gehry's office. And, it would also seem that the client bears some of the responsibility for the VE that occurred.
As long as Gehry was designing a building within the basic level of care, that other architects would, then he would not, and should not be held liable.
I'll own my mistake of paraphrasing your question improperly. My bad. You did specifically state means and methods. As I said in my first post, that is the responsibility of the contractor. But means and methods can't fix poor design.
It would appear that in the case of Stata that it was not the design that was at fault but rather the failure of the contractor to follow the contract documents. Whose responsibility is it to ensure the contractor follow the documents? (Hint: go read my first post again.)
I think there is more at fault than what your link showed. It mentions nothing of waterproofing, which is what you should rely on to keep water out, not pavers set in a mortar bed with the proper slope. There is probably a lot more going on, it is hardly ever so simple. But that really isn't my point. My point is that you can't rely on the argument that it's the contractor's fault because they control means and methods. And you can't rely on an argument that humans are imperfect and therefore our buildings leak.
Again, I don't think he is intentionally designing leaky buildings. I would also caution that negligence does not have to be intentional as you seem to imply. But again, I think this is getting away from your original premise that architects aren't responsible for leaky buildings. You were speaking in specific reference to works of Gehry, but your premise that allows him the freedom to point fingers at the contractor is very general. In general, architects are responsible to their clients to design and ensure that a leak-free building gets built.
How many site visits are agreed to? Also, I disagree, it's not the architects responsibility to make sure that the contract documents are followed by the contractor. It's the contractors responsibility to make sure that the documents are followed. Do you expect to be at the job site every single day? Making sure every joint is 3/8" thick, that the walls are square, that every slab is poured 4" thick?? Really? Now, show me in the documents or contracts where it states how many site visits are required. You won't find it, it doesn't exist, and when there are site visits listed, they're often included in the supplemental conditions as part of the changes to B101.
Ken, due respect, but that's a lazy retort and you should know better. Anyone familiar with the AIA documents would know the answer to your string of questions wondering if the Architect is checking every little thing about the project against the documents. The Agreement specifically notes that the Architect is not responsible to make exhaustive or continuous inspections. But exhaustive or continuous inspections are far from necessary for the Architect to fulfill their responsibilities to the Owner.
As for the number of visits and why Architects need to make them:
AIA B101-2007 Section 3.6.2.1 (note these are basic services): "The Architect shall visit the site at intervals appropriate to the stage of construction, or as otherwise required in Section 4.3.3, to become generally familiar with the progress and quality of the portion of the Work completed, and to determine, in general, if the Work observed is being performed in a manner indicating that the Work, when fully completed, will be in accordance with the Contract Documents. However, the Architect shall not be required to make exhaustive or continuous on-site inspections to check the quality or quantity of the Work. On the basis of the site visits, the Architect shall keep the Owner reasonably informed about the progress and quality of the portion of the Work completed, and report to the Owner (1) known deviations from the Contract Documents and from the most recent construction schedule submitted by the Contractor, and (2) defects and deficiencies observed in the Work." (emphasis mine)
AIA B101-2007 Section 4.3.3.2, allows the Owner and Architect to agree to a specific number of visits to the site beyond which any further visits would be considered additional services. So actually, while the number of site visits should vary from project to project, it can actually be agreed to and it does become part of the Agreement. So yes, it does exist. Also, for the record, Supplemental Conditions modify the General Conditions, not the Owner/Architect Agreement.
To your other point that the architect has no responsibility to make sure the contract documents are followed by the contractor:
If you take a narrow look at AIA A201-2007 Section 3.1.2 you'll see that indeed, like you say, the Contractor is responsible to perform the work in accordance with the contract documents: "The contractor shall perform the Work in accordance with the Contract Documents." However, this narrow view misses the bigger picture, and the Architect's responsibility to administer the contract.
AIA B101-2007 Section 3.6.1.1: "The Architect shall provide administration of the Contract between the Owner and the Contractor as set forth below and in AIA Document A201-2007, General Conditions of the Contract for Construction. [...]"
AIA A201-2007 Section 4.2.2 and Section 4.2.3 restate the responsibilities the Architect agreed to with the Owner to visit the site, determine if the work is being performed in accordance with the Contract Documents, and report any deficiencies to the Owner. I've quoted these responsibilities above but feel free to review them again.
There is more throughout the General Conditions and the Agreement that point to the fact that the Architect is supposed to make sure the work is being done according to the Contract Documents. Look at their responsibilities to review and take action on shop drawings and other actionable submittals. Look at their responsibilities to certify applications for payment. Look at their authority to reject work that is not in conformance with the Contract Documents. Look at their responsibility to conduct inspections to determine substantial and final completion. All of these things point to the fact that the architect is there to make sure the Contractor fulfills their responsibility to follow the documents. If not the architect, do you really expect the Contractor to police themselves?
This lesson on Contract Documents brought to you free of charge with the understanding the the general information is for the overall benefit of the profession. If you need further guidance on how to be an architect more specifically, I'm sure we could come to an agreement for consulting fees.
Maybe this is a good topic to discuss with the Archinect Sessions laywer.
On another note ... glad the podcast is getting some traction. I'm excited to see how it will progress, and I applaud all of you for the effort and work you put into it. I've got on my to do list a follow-up to an old blog post of mine that will most likely focus on Archinect Sessions.
AIA B101-2007 Standard Form of Agreement between Owner and Architect; Article 3.1.5: "[...] In designing the Project, the Architect shall respond to applicable design requirements imposed by such governmental authorities [...]"
In this case we will look at the International Building Code, adopted by many "governmental authorities" as necessary requirements for building design and construction:
IBC 2015 Chapter 14 Exterior Walls; Section 1403.2 Weather Protection: "Exterior walls shall provide the building with an weather-resistant exterior wall envelope. [...] The exterior wall envelope shall be designed and constructed in such a manner as to prevent the accumulation of water within the wall assembly [...]"
IBC 2015 Chapter 15 Roof Assemblies and Rooftop Structures; Section 1503.1 General: "[...] Roof coverings shall be designed and installed in accordance with this code and the approved manufacturer's instructions such that the roof covering shall serve to protect the building or structure." Section 1503.2 Flashing: "Flashing shall be installed in such a manner so as to prevent moisture entering the wall and roof through joints in copings, through moisture-permeable materials and at intersections with parapet walls and other penetrations through the roof plane."
It would seem that it is indeed the Architect's responsibility to the Owner to provide them with a design that does not leak. As for what happens after the design is accepted and the documents are used to establish the Contract Documents with which the Contractor is to build the design ... back to the Agreement:
AIA B101-2007 Standard Form of Agreement between Owner and Architect; Article 3.6.2.1: "The Architect shall visit the site [...] to become generally familiar with the progress and quality of the portion of the Work completed, and to determine, in general, if the Work observed is being performed in a manner indicating that the Work, when fully completed, will be in accordance with the Contract Documents. [...]" Article 3.6.2.2: "The Architect has the authority to reject Work that does not conform to the Contract Documents. [...]"
From the commentaries 3.6.2.1:
[The architect’s role is to represent, advise
and consult with the owner to the extent
authorized in this agreement.
This is different from “periodic” visits, a term
that implies definite and equal time intervals
between visits regardless of project requirements.
Sound professional judgment should
determine the timing and number of visits to
the site in accordance with the type and
nature of the project and other contractual
commitments. If the parties so choose, they
may designate the number of visits under
the schedule of services in Article 4.3.3.2
The architect cannot detect every deviation
from the contract documents regardless of
the frequency of the architect’s site visits.
However, the architect is required to report
deviations that are discovered to the owner.
Problems can arise when site visits are limited
without regard to project requirements.
As a general matter, it is in the best interest
of both parties for the architect to be
retained and compensated to make what is,
in the architect’s judgment, an adequate
number of site visits.
The architect has no duty to be at the site
full-time (unless full-time project representation
is specifically contracted for), to make
detailed inspections (unless special inspections
of subsystems are mandated by the
agreement) or to direct the contractor’s
workers. An important goal of the architect’s
services during construction is to represent
the owner’s interests by reviewing the contractor’s
efforts with due professional care
and reporting what has been observed. This
enables the owner to enforce the owner’s
rights under the contract for construction.]
From the commentaries 3.6.2.2:
[The architect would be well-advised to prepare
written reports of site visits and give
copies to the owner and, as necessary, the
contractor.
This helps establish the dividing line
between the architect’s responsibilities and
those of the contractor. This clear allocation
of responsibility will help a court or arbiter
assess legal responsibility for accidents or
construction deficiencies, thus protecting
the interests of all participants on the project.]
A201 3.1.2:
Definitions: [[1.1.3 THE WORK
The term "Work"means the construction
and services required by the
Contract Documents, whether completed
or partially completed, and includes all
other labor, materials, equipment and
services provided or to be provided by
the Contractor to fulfill the Contractor's
obligations. The Work may constitute the
whole or a part of the Project]]
Commentary on The Work:
[The term work appears throughout AIA
Document A201-1997 family of documents.
As a defined term, workis especially important
(1) for describing the contractor’s obligations
to provide improvements to the project,
(2) for defining the scope of the property
insurance required under Paragraph 11.4,
and (3) for distinguishing between the contractor’s
efforts and the efforts of the
owner’s other contractor who may also be
on the project.]
[[1.1.5 THE DRAWINGS
The Drawings are the graphic and pictorial
portions of the Contract Documents
showing the design, location and dimensions
of the Work, generally including
plans, elevations, sections, details,
schedules and diagrams.]]
Commentary on The Drawings:
[The term drawings includes more than the
bound set of prints first received by the contractor.
Drawings are also found in addenda,
change orders, construction change directives,
minor changes in the work and other
modifications in the work.]
[[1.1.6 THE SPECIFICATIONS
The Specificationsare that portion of
the Contract Documents consisting of
the written requirements for materials,
equipment, systems, standards and
workmanship for the Work, and performance
of related services]]
Commentary on The Specifications:
[The specifications are written descriptions
that qualitatively define the work. It is now
common construction industry practice to
organize the specifications according to the
16 divisions of MASTERFORMAT, a publication
of the Construction Specifications
Institute. Each division is further organized
into a collection of custom sections which
describe the general scope, products to be
used and execution of the particular item of
work, such as cast-in-place concrete. Under
the AIA’s auspices, a library of master specification
sections, known as MASTERSPEC,
is currently published and available on an
annual subscription basis.]
[[1.2 CORRELATION AND INTENT
OF THE CONTRACT
DOCUMENTS
1.2.1 The intent of the Contract
Documents is to include all items necessary
for the proper execution and completion
of the Work by the Contractor.
The Contract Documents are complementary,
and what is required by one
shall be as binding as if required by all;
performance by the Contractor shall be
required only to the extent consistent
with the Contract Documents and reasonably
inferable from them as being
necessary to produce the indicated
results.]]
Commentary:
[Because the contract documents are a collaborative
effort sometimes involving the
owner, architect and numerous consultants,
there is no inherent order of precedence
among those documents. For instance, a
plan may show a door, a door schedule will
designate the type of door and hardware,
one specification section may specify the
quality of door and another specification
section will specify the quality of hardware.
Collectively, those contract documents are
used to describe that particular work item.
Moreover, a pre-selected order of precedence
assumes that one item is more
important than another. For instance,
assuming that the plans are chosen to prevail
over the specifications, if the plans did
not show the hinges on the door even
though the specifications required them, the
owner might get a hingeless door. Under
these circumstances, a pre-selected order
of precedence may cause an absurd result.
The contractor is expected to make reasonable
inferences from the contract documents.
When the documents show wall partitions
covered by drywall, for example, it may be
inferred that some reasonable method will
be used to attach the drywall to the underlying
framework.]
[3.1.2 The Contractor shall perform the
Work in accordance with the Contract
Documents.
3.1.3 The Contractor shall not be
relieved of obligations to perform the
Work in accordance with the Contract
Documents either by activities or duties
of the Architect in the Architect's administration
of the Contract, or by tests,
inspections or approvals required or performed
by persons other than the
Contractor.
3.2 REVIEW OF CONTRACT
DOCUMENTS AND FIELD
CONDITIONS BY CONTRACTOR
3.2.1 Since the Contract Documents
are complementary, before starting each
portion of the Work, the Contractor shall
carefully study and compare the various
Drawings and other Contract Documents
relative to that portion of the Work, as
well as the information furnished by the
Owner pursuant to Subparagraph 2.2.3,
shall take field measurements of any
existing conditions related to that portion
of the Work and shall observe any conditions
at the site affecting it. These obligations
are for the purpose of facilitating
construction by the Contractor and are
not for the purpose of discovering errors,
omissions, or inconsistencies in the
Contract Documents; however, any
errors, inconsistencies or omissions discovered
by the Contractor shall be reported promptly to the Architect as a
request for information in such form as
the Architect may require.
[[3.2.2 Any design errors or omissions
noted by the Contractor during this
review shall be reported promptly to the
Architect, but it is recognized that the
Contractor's review is made in the
Contractor's capacity as a contractor and
not as a licensed design professional
unless otherwise specifically provided
in the Contract Documents. The
Contractor is not required to ascertain
that the Contract Documents are in
accordance with applicable laws,
statutes, ordinances, building codes, and
rules and regulations, but any nonconformity
discovered by or made known to the
Contractor shall be reported promptly to
the Architect.]]
Commentary to 3.2.2
[The contractor is required to report errors
and omissions promptly in order to minimize
the costs of correction.
The contractor is not expected to engage in
a professional review of the architect’s
design. If professional design services are
required of the contractor pursuant to
Subparagraph 3.12.10, review by the contractor’s
design professional is required to
the extent necessary to coordinate such
design professional’s services with those of
the contractor.
As with discovery of errors and omissions,
above, prompt notice is required in order to
minimize the costs of correction.]
[[3.3 SUPERVISION AND
CONSTRUCTION PROCEDURES
3.3.1 The Contractor shall supervise
and direct the Work, using the
Contractor's best skill and attention. The
Contractor shall be solely responsible for
and have control over construction
means, methods, techniques, sequences
and procedures and for coordinating all
portions of the Work under the Contract,
unless the Contract Documents give
other specific instructions concerning
these matters. If the Contract Documents
give specific instructions concerning
construction means, methods, techniques,
sequences or procedures, the
Contractor shall evaluate the jobsite
safety thereof and, except as stated
below, shall be fully and solely responsible
for the jobsite safety of such means,
methods, techniques, sequences or procedures.
If the Contractor determines
that such means, methods, techniques,
sequences or procedures may not be
safe, the Contractor shall give timely
written notice to the Owner and
Architect and shall not proceed with that
portion of the Work without further written
instructions from the Architect. If the
Contractor is then instructed to proceed
with the required means, methods, techniques,
sequences or procedures without
acceptance of changes proposed by the
Contractor, the Owner shall be solely
responsible for any resulting loss or
damage. ]]
The Architect's Handbook of Professional Practice
In New York, these are 4 of the 5 reasons for Architect liability:
In a negligence standard claim, it must be shown that the architect failed to perform in accordance with the standard of professional care usually exercised by such professionals in the community.
The more complex and unusual the architect’s design, the more latitude an architect is allowed. This latitude however can be quite narrow. For example, an architect was found liable for damages to the owner for roof repairs, not because the roof was installed incorrectly, but because the design of the roof caused owner significantly increased maintenance and repair costs. [- whoa! - kk]
Design liability may also rest with the architect for items that are actually beyond the design of the architect. New York courts have held that an architect will be liable to the owner for any damages incurred as a result of the architect's approval of engineering drawings and a defect therein causes damage to the owner.
However, as elaborated in case law from 1866, “the architect must be diligent in inspecting and supervising the work, but is not obligated to discover every defect in a contractor's or subcontractor's work and will not be liable for defects so long as they are not attributable to carelessness, negligence, or inattention on the architect's part.”
Regardless of limitations over means and methods as stated above, failure of the architect to abide by the contract terms of inspection can result in the architect ultimately being liable to the owner. If it can be established that the architect breached this obligation, and this breach was the “proximate cause” of a failure to discover a defect, the architect may be liable to the owner for the cost incurred in correcting the defect.]]
Architect Liability NY
In Florida this happened;
Shepard v. City of Palatka
[[In a proper factual situation, where it is demonstrated that the architect ignored his contractual duty to make periodic visits to the site, liability could possibly lie regardless of such exonerating language. Such was not the case here, however. The architect's deposition reflected that he had made inspections. While he admitted that he had not discovered the misuse of the wallboard, the contract clearly protected him because it imposed no duty upon him to discover the omission of the contractor and clearly absolved him of liability if there were, in fact, such omissions.]]
So, where does that leave us? Confusing I'd rather think not. It seems that if you design a "building" it is required to meet with the codes local to the AHJ, if your drawings conform to those codes, it should not be a problem, yet, we still have buildings that are constructed, and leak. Is it my responsibility as a design professional to ensure they do not leak, or is it my responsibility to design a building that meets code, is inspected accordingly during construction, and identify issues as "I see them" and bring them to the attention of my client when they occur? I think we know where the answers are. Even if I catch two errors in the construction process, because I see them, what about the errors I don't see? Well, from the case I cited above, I'd say the answer is pretty clear; I am not responsible. As I noted above, regarding the Stata Center, it seems pretty clear that for the most part, the contractor, their representatives, are on the hook, with the possible exception of the roof over the exit doors, and that it seems, was taken care of by the architect, and some additional snow guards that were VE'd out of the project.
I am happy to own up these facts:
I guess I could've put this more succinctly.
I could buy all the ingredients to make a beef Bourguignon and souffle, but that doesn't make me a Julia Childs, or a chef for that matter. Or, could buy paint and a canvas, but still not match the beauty of Picasso. Just because I detail a design, doesn't mean I am qualified to build the building. I just have to know when there's too much, or not enough seasoning.
I think we are starting to agree on a lot more at this point. I don't think we have to be perfect and that an architect's buildings should never leak. However, they should be designed so that when constructed (according the the design) they do not leak; i.e.: in accordance with the code. Construction is not a perfect process and an architect is far from perfect themselves. However, using this statement to absolve any architect from any liability when one of their designs leaks is far from the statement's intent. There will always be a variety of factors at play and an answer is rarely straightforward, which is why the lawyers get brought in.
I do think architects, when doing something complicated or out of the ordinary with their designs, have a greater responsibility to their clients. I also don't nsee this statement in conflict with the NY liability comments. I don't see this as a purely legal view but rather than one of good professional practice. This starts with informing your client of the extraordinary nature of the design and the potential unknowns, and preparing them with reasonable expectations of performance. It continues with the architect's due diligence in designing and documenting it, and finishes with perhaps greater requirements for additional visits, inspections, testing, and oversight (all of this potentially by a third-party if the Architect is not qualified) to ensure an acceptable level of performance so the clients expectations are met. This in and of itself can probably do more to prevent future litigation than relying on language in any contract.
I'm not sure I agree with your comment regarding the lack of use of AIA documents in the profession in its entirety. I acknowledge my lack of experience in the profession; I have a lot less time in the profession than the vast majority on archinect, including yourself. However, the nature of my current position involves reviewing more contracts in a typical year than I can count using both hands, and a fair amount of my toes. The majority of those have been AIA contracts with minimal editing. We don't do much residential, and we are definitely not a sole proprietorship and I would agree that those types of projects and firms most likely do not use them (though I would think they would be wise to start). We are quite a large firm with offices throughout the US and we do quite a lot of large projects for clients you are probably very familiar with both architecturally and culturally. While I don't see contracts for all of our projects, I do see them for the projects I work on. Most of them are using AIA documents and while edited, do not significantly change all that much.
Those clients that wish to use their own contracts would actually be better served by using the AIA's or other professional organization's standard documents. The reason for this, and why a smart client will use them, is that the AIA documents have been around long enough so architects and contractors are familiar with them, lawyers are familiar with them, courts are familiar with them, and their provisions have a history of cases that can be used to understand and interpret their intent. Additionally, most commercially available guide specifications have been written assuming the use of these standard documents facilitating their use for a project's specs. Most clients don't understand the amount of extra effort non-standard contracts make for a an architect. A lot of architects don't understand this as well which leads to errors in coordination, or time spent coordinating them without adequate compensation.
I do apologize for my quip about this being a lesson on contract documents. You are correct that a knowledge of contracts is not the sole measure of a good architect. My fingers were faster than my better sense. I do think architects would be wise to become more familiar with them, or at least hire someone like myself who is. I am finding, for the most part, that studying for and passing the ARE is not sufficient for most architects. I say this because I am constantly educating architects in my firm of things that are fairly basic. While I am not yet an architect, nor have I started studying for or taken the ARE, I have sought out and received quite a bit of education and training to understand contracts and construction documents more completely.
One final thing, because I feel like being picky, is that you were quoting an outdated commentary for A201. I don't think the overall content has changed from what you quoted from the 1997 version to the 2007 version, but current MasterFormat contains more than 16 divisions (and has for more than a decade now). It does appear you have the current commentary for B101, mainly because it was a different number in 1997 and would not exist under that designation, but also because it talks about the change to "appropriate intervals" of site visits instead of "periodic" visits made in the most recent version.
Test
You're correct about the last part, I don't have a pdf of the current A201 commentary, I have the one I used in 2007.
Actually, the commentary I used was also from B141, I made the minor changes to make it read B101.
I don't have the time to type in the commentary from A201.
I saw an edited B101 that had I think 9 pages of edits, now this was a contract with the state of Delaware, so that might be a case. And, given some of construction detail standards that MNSCU, and Met Council uses in my state, it wouldn't surprise me if that was the case too.
Here's where we diverge, at least legally, using the words "greater responsibility" is problematic, especially how it's used in a contractual agreement. Define "greater responsibility". Architects should not be held to something that can't be defined, but by the terms of the contract. If the contract defines a number of site visits, and is agreed to buy both parties, it would be argued that anything above that number should be billed, but we both know that rarely happens and that could be problematic for the architect.
I think the link to the Pro Practice pages, says a lot about what an architect shouldn't do, and should do.
"Greater responsibility" is probably not the right way to word it. But I think you are getting close to my point. Architects can't be held to something that isn't defined. So does the architect have a duty to inform the client of the complicated detailing of their design and negotiate with them to define the appropriate level of service?
The details of the negotiation will vary. Maybe the client won't agree to additional services, maybe they do. Maybe they won't pay for additional site visits or inspections, but at the very least, you'll both be on the same page. Then, if the complicated design leaks you've got a better case when the client sues you. You can present the case that you informed them of the nature of the design and they opted to not compensate you for the necessary oversight to determine if the design was going to perform properly. Then it's left up to the lawyers to determine whether or not you should have provided that oversight as part of your basic services. Looks like in New York at least you might be given some greater latitude.
Note: this doesn't get into whose idea it was to pursue the complicated design in the first place. I think the architect starts to really have a solid defense if they show that the client wanted to proceed down the complicated pathway.
Does that help to clarify my position? Perhaps the phrase should just be "responsibility." I could see this being an expectation of many clients, but I'm not sure if all architects see it this way.
Is it cool to copy paste AIA contract language for all to copy? Don't you have to pay for these contracts....just saying....
Now that's classic.
they should be designed so that when constructed (according the the design) they do not leak; i.e.: in accordance with the code. Construction is not a perfect process and an architect is far from perfect themselves.
Part of the architect's responsibility - providing a design that in itself does not cause leaks - requires understanding the various conditions from weather (rain, ice, wind, etc.) and their effect on a particular design or condition as well as the capability of such design to be built and to perform as designed.
All that legal bullshit does is add another layer of separation between responsibility and performance. It doesn't say I'm supposed to do that is a cop out. Your job is to design a building that performs within the specified and unspecified parameters that it is your responsibility as the smartest guy in the room to know all about.
Olaf, anybody copying that contract will get their money's worth.
I love it when design professionals are so willing to confer more responsibility to an architect than the contract requires.
All I've ever said, and written, is that this process is infinitely more complicated than anyone's simplistic explanation. I could design everything correctly, and the contractor, and subs, and manufacturer, can still fuck it up.
Miles, do you have E&O insurance?
So, stop it already. If anything is killing the profession, it's this idiotic backbiting, and undermining of the profession by those practicing it.
Does the professional standard of care expect that an architect provide sufficient skill, expertise and detail in their services to minimize the possibility of leaks? Does the standard of care expect that the architect caution their client about the complicated nature of a particular design that might result in leaks if not constructed properly?
Note: these are not questions of perfection. Architects do not offer guarantees that their designs don't leak. That would be extending the standard of care beyond what would be expected. If the standard of care would expect this type of service from the architect then it is required not only by the contract (in this case AIA B101-2007), but common law as well.
Olaf ... I doubt the AIA is going to come after us for copying several paragraphs and offering commentary. If they are worried about people getting and copying the language of their documents from this forum, I'll make it easier for anyone to get the full text - B101 and A201 (courtesy of the AIA).
If anything is killing the profession, it's this idiotic backbiting, and undermining of the profession by those practicing it.
That's a narrow view. What about budget busting designs, schools that teach bullshit philosophies instead of practical working knowledge, firms that use interns as slave labor, architects who do a half-assed job and blame the builder, etc.? Or clients who look for the cheapest bids, or don't pay, or make indiscriminate changes, and so on.
Being critical is not backbiting or undermining. Should we just pat ourselves on the back and pretend these problems don't exist - is that what your contracts are for?
I was joking...everyone is so uptight lately...I think Beta got it though.
"Does the standard of care expect that the architect caution their client about the complicated nature of a particular design that might result in leaks if not constructed properly?"
Please explain to me when you've had this conversation with a client, and tell me how this went. Are you suggesting that failure to have a conversation of this fashion, would be the basis for legal proceedings? Why restrict your hypothetical to "complicated nature of a particular design", I mean we all agree, don't we, that the nature of construction, in and of itself, is "complicated", it involves millions of pieces, and thousands of person hours to assemble? No person in their right fucking mind would endeavor to build a goddamned thing if they thought it would leak, before it was ever constructed. I mean just imagine, it's 1901, and this fucking genius of a dude, says he's got this great idea for a horseless carriage, however there's only one drawback, if you drive it someone could hit you from the rear, cause your gas tank to leak, and you may go up in flames. Hey! I'll take two!
Miles, miles, miles. Yawn. Your hatred of the profession is sad. Half assed, says you. Budget busting, again, says you. Bullshit philosophies, really? I don't know where you get that one. I can't speak to the clients point, public work requires low bids, and other clients I've had, went with the bid submitted by the company best capable of performing. Indiscriminate changes, use a contract, and get paid for the changes. As for interns as slave labor, well, you're in for a treat, we interviewed a firm today, that doesn't use slave labor, and happen to be great stewards of my profession, and while you are correct, there are many that do what you say, you're really not in a position to do anything about it. Let the responsible architects handle that issue.
You're not critical, because you're not constructive, you're snipping from the sidelines. All that "legal bullshit" is necessary for me to do my job, and not have clients expecting me to be god.
And because I think you might not be interested in finding it in my post earlier, I'll post the link, again.
The Architect's Handbook of Professional Practice
It's even the correct location for this conversation, not that you'll care, or even agree with me, but the cited passage is really good at pointing the "shoulds and should'nts"
Olaf, yeah I got it, cracked me up...
I can't say I've had that discussion. Why? Generally I stick to things that aren't that complicated, so I don't need to have a sit down with the client and say, "I have no idea what I'm doing here, but if you want to spend your money on my experiment, let's go!" I'm not opposed to challenging convention, trying something new, or figuring out a tricky detail ... but when I do take on something like that I make sure I get it right. Why? Because I would rather spend the time to get it right and have a happy client, than try to pass a half-baked idea along to the contractor thinking they'll figure it out only to have it blow up in my face.
Construction in and of itself may be complicated involving all the pieces and people ... but I wasn't talking about the construction. I was talking about the design. You know, the design the client pays you to do. The thing that architects are so good at.
There are times I get it wrong. Today I found out we specified the wrong type of glazing for an element on a project that is nearing final completion. Nothing big, but it could be an issue 5-10 years down the road. It isn't that extreme, but it is using the material in a slightly unconventional way. It still meets code, but long-term performance may be compromised. I'm still sorting out if there is a relatively cheap fix rather than paying to replace it all; I'll hear back from a manufacturer's rep tomorrow.
Could the contractor or their sub have caught it and asked if this is what we really wanted? They could have, but I'm not blaming it on them. To their credit, they followed my documents to the letter. No, I'll have to present the available options to the client and let them know it was our mistake. It will suck, but I'd rather do it now than get a phone call 7 years from now when this element of their building isn't performing the way they thought it would. I would have rather had the discussion during the design phases and gone over the options then, before it necessitates a change order, but I'm human and can't catch everything.
Should the same apply to a complicated roof design that relies on everything coming together perfectly? Do I owe the client a little heads up that I've never tried this before, and I'm pretty sure it will work, and I think it will make their building spectacular if it does? Do they deserve to know they are paying for something that is out of the ordinary and untested before they pay for it and it fails (or succeeds)? Clients come to us because they trust our judgement and our expertise. They might also come to us because of our cutting-edge designs. But what happens when the cutting-edge design is pushing past the boundaries of our expertise and the client's trust in us is no longer valid? Shouldn't the standard of care dictate that we inform the client and achieve consent before proceeding into unknown, and untested designs?
Medical doctors have to receive informed consent. This requires them to inform the patient of the facts, implications and consequences of a treatment before proceeding. Is there not a corollary in architecture where a client/patient deserves to know to what extent we are practiced and knowledgeable professionals, and to what extent we are just cutting open limbs and poking around, waiting to see what will happen? In some cases aren't we still peddling our designs like the snake oil salesman of old who rolls into town in his wagon preaching that their special elixir will cure all ails? Is this why LEED buildings have performance values all over the map?
Now my coffee is cold.
Public works are not the only projects that require low bids. Developers are notorious for not just low bids but for undercutting everyone. Residential clients with deep pockets are often no better.
Ever see a flat roof house in a wet and snowy climate? How about a cheaply built project that everyone ran from as fast as they could, or one that immediately went to lawyers for 'resolution', or developers who undercut labor to sell multimillion dollar disposable houses? Do you spend your time papering the file in anticipation of a lawsuit?
Where I am this is pretty much business as usual and the people who stand out are the minority who take care of their responsibilities and the project. While you may be lucky enough to be in an area where mostly reasonable people do mostly reasonable things, others might not be so lucky. But since that is not your experience it is wrong and irrelevent.
You can try to be intelligent about these things, Ken, or you can just keeping making the kind of snippy stupid statements about my comments <yawn> killing the profession and such.
The thread is like a car crash, Non Sequitur, you know you should look away...
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.