How Architects Work and....
02-22-2007 | 04:51 AM
#22
Registered User
Joined: Aug 2005
Posts: 1,787
Likes: 0
From: Taipei / NYC Metro
Originally Posted by paS2K,Feb 22 2007, 12:00 AM
Rob, an important point to clarify:
Architects do not typically 'supervise' the work....the correct term is 'observe' the work for conformance to drawings and specs. 'Supervision' is the role of the contractor, who is responsible for 'means and methods'. Trust me...this distinction has been well-defined by the last 100 years of construction. The architect has a lot of responsibility under a full-service AIA B-141 Agreement, but 'supervision' is not one of them.
The exception to this rule is 'design-build'....where the architect also acts as the builder; this gives the client a real turn-key project, with the cost guaranteed earlier in the process. Design-build is becoming more common, but a lot of 'creative' architects are too risk-averse to take on the related liability.
Architects do not typically 'supervise' the work....the correct term is 'observe' the work for conformance to drawings and specs. 'Supervision' is the role of the contractor, who is responsible for 'means and methods'. Trust me...this distinction has been well-defined by the last 100 years of construction. The architect has a lot of responsibility under a full-service AIA B-141 Agreement, but 'supervision' is not one of them.
The exception to this rule is 'design-build'....where the architect also acts as the builder; this gives the client a real turn-key project, with the cost guaranteed earlier in the process. Design-build is becoming more common, but a lot of 'creative' architects are too risk-averse to take on the related liability.
Also learnt from my "professional practice" class. An architect's responsibility is "periodic inspection" of the work, not "supervise". They can, but it's more money out of the client's pocket.
My father is an architect in Taiwan for over 30 years. The firm became "design-build" about 15 years ago. It's a lot more responsibilities but the process is also a lot easier definitely less conflict.
02-22-2007 | 05:17 AM
#23
Registered User
Joined: Aug 2005
Posts: 1,787
Likes: 0
From: Taipei / NYC Metro
Originally Posted by klassyblue,Feb 21 2007, 10:58 PM
Depends on the definition of a 'good' house.......
2 years in a row 2 of my houses won awards in the Parade of Homes here in Richmond. The first year, I won a gold award for "Best Plan" in the category my builder entered, and the following year I won a silver award for "Best Curb Appeal"....... I was so excited to have been involved in these projects but I did not see this as a 'personal' award for ME (even though I drew the plans and designed the house) because I'm not a person who brags about these things - it was a TEAM effort between myself and the builder. I felt pretty darn good NOT being an architect and still being a winner!!!
On a side note - - I was involved 2 years ago in a copyright infringement lawsuit and I can say I know MORE than I ever thought I would about 'plans'... but the suit all boiled down to the actual 'registration' of the plans with the copyright office. Just having that "c" in a circle on the plans does not mean it's registered.
My drawings are the property of my clients NOT me. They have paid me and I do not sell their plans to other builders. A personal choice of my own and my builders appreciate that, since other designers here locally will sell plans in a heartbeat if the can make money. I don't operate like that.
2 years in a row 2 of my houses won awards in the Parade of Homes here in Richmond. The first year, I won a gold award for "Best Plan" in the category my builder entered, and the following year I won a silver award for "Best Curb Appeal"....... I was so excited to have been involved in these projects but I did not see this as a 'personal' award for ME (even though I drew the plans and designed the house) because I'm not a person who brags about these things - it was a TEAM effort between myself and the builder. I felt pretty darn good NOT being an architect and still being a winner!!!
On a side note - - I was involved 2 years ago in a copyright infringement lawsuit and I can say I know MORE than I ever thought I would about 'plans'... but the suit all boiled down to the actual 'registration' of the plans with the copyright office. Just having that "c" in a circle on the plans does not mean it's registered.
My drawings are the property of my clients NOT me. They have paid me and I do not sell their plans to other builders. A personal choice of my own and my builders appreciate that, since other designers here locally will sell plans in a heartbeat if the can make money. I don't operate like that.
Klassyblue,I don't know you personally nor do I know your work. Therefore, I cannot comment on it. Kudos to you for making good houses and getting the awards. I'm sure the plans and the executions are excellent. Perhaps it's the program that I attended and how it affected my view on architecture but I still believe that architects benefit from having unique design processes vs. non-architects. Again, I don't know your design process but if someone designs from a plan, he/she is missing out on a lot of opportunities. Buildings should be designed three dimensionally. Also, what's driving the design language? etc. The end product (plans, execution, efficiency, etc.) still needs to be excellent but there also elements that drive each design that clients may or may not know about. A car example of what I mean is the whole Chris Bangle's "flame surfacing" (or something like that) in his BMWs. I am not a big fan of his work but I know there's a central idea that his designs are based on.
Okay I've rambled long enough. As for the copyright issue, I don't think good architects ever sell their plans because each building is unique to its site and surroundings. The copyright is really to protect the architect from the clients building another building using the same plans. How would you feel if your client does the same thing?
02-22-2007 | 05:45 AM
#24
Registered User
Joined: Nov 2001
Posts: 5,296
Likes: 1
From: Delaware, OH
Originally Posted by CalBear,Feb 22 2007, 09:17 AM
... The copyright is really to protect the architect from the clients building another building using the same plans. How would you feel if your client does the same thing?
02-22-2007 | 05:57 AM
#25
Registered User
Joined: Aug 2005
Posts: 1,787
Likes: 0
From: Taipei / NYC Metro
Originally Posted by RedY2KS2k,Feb 22 2007, 09:45 AM
About like the homeowner who paid for a unique design for their house and then saw it duplicated down the road because someone else bought the plans.
02-26-2007 | 07:22 AM
#27
Registered User
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 205
Likes: 0
From: Winnipeg, MB
Here's a quick question. I would like to build my next house, I'm wondering if anyone here has experience with building a precast concrete homes? We have more modern tastes and I would like to use precast to create a very open and flexible design with as many windows as possible.
Any suggestions?
Any suggestions?
02-26-2007 | 08:16 AM
#30
Former Moderator
Joined: Oct 2003
Posts: 17,118
Likes: 625
From: Houston/Durango
We had a well respected architect firm to help us design a log house in Colorado a few years ago. We progressed through, and paid for, three sets of plans with modifications in each, and the final draft had the open staircase to the loft rooms located on one side of the great room. This change required the roof and walls to be raised about three feet to allow for the stair space under the ceiling beams. We thought, and the architect apparently also thought, that he had made all of the modifications in the plans that were then required for the construction to proceed. The roof was already constructed and the loft bedrooms were being completed when the builder discovered that the dormers would not fit the spaces that the plans provided for. The dormer windows would cut a couple of feet too low, because the roofline had been raised three feet.
It ended up costing a lot of time, materials and expense to correct the error, but the architect didn't bear any of the cost. The plans remain his property now, and he has built a couple of variants of the house elsewhere in the mountains, I think, but that doesn't really bother us. I have heard of a few horror stories from people who have built mountain homes up there, but this one had a happy ending. We still sometimes go out to dinner with the architect and his wife. They are very nice neighbors -- former hippies from 1960s Boulder. All's well that ends well.
It ended up costing a lot of time, materials and expense to correct the error, but the architect didn't bear any of the cost. The plans remain his property now, and he has built a couple of variants of the house elsewhere in the mountains, I think, but that doesn't really bother us. I have heard of a few horror stories from people who have built mountain homes up there, but this one had a happy ending. We still sometimes go out to dinner with the architect and his wife. They are very nice neighbors -- former hippies from 1960s Boulder. All's well that ends well.