Wow ... how things have changed since I last posted. Everytime I turn around, there's another batch of architects being laid off. In Architectural Record, they track arch firm billings and inquiries each month and we are still scraping the bottom. That's bad news for a huge crop of new graduates (and everyone else in the building industry, for that matter). Good luck to all.
Our company, Centerpoint Builders, is a design/build company. We just made the leap to purchase the ArchiCAD BIM software package. It is very interesting to me the claims made by its proponents on the speed to produce a prelim design model through construction documents. If the claims prove to be true, it could make the architecture profession profitable again. Stay tuned as we experiment with the package on a coupe new projects.
This blog focuses on the need for young architects to understand construction means and methods. No where is this more obvious than in green building design. Understanding proper insulation, waterproofing, vapor barriers, HVAC, etc construction will maximize the efficiency of the design, and therefore the environmental footprint of the design.
I've gotten several responses posted here that BIM doesn't require construction experience, as I have stated. My concern was the platform requires a knowledge of how systems connect and interact - I called it construction experience, but really it should be construction knowledge.
The point to this blog remains the same - the typical architectural education does not prepare students with a construction knowledge to utilize the new technology.
Great article by the former head of Gensler on client relationships. For young architects, I think this is the real world. Click on the title of this post for the link.
I was reading the catalog for the 2007 AIA Convention. Of course, this year's continuing ed sessions are dominated by green/sustainable building topics, but I was interested in the description of "Why Owners Like Design/Build"....
It is predicted that 50% of all projects will be design/build by 2010....Most design/build is contractor-led, resulting in architects becoming subcontractors, with no direct contact with the owner/end user.
Architects have been, for years, attempting to defer responsibility to others. The AIA contract documents are a prime example of this. While there's nothing wrong with deflecting RISK for results outside of one's control (i.e., an architect's responsibility for construction site safety), deflecting RESPONSIBILITY is a sure way to make one's self unnecessary. There are any number of entities out there willing to trade risk for money - contractors are a prime example.
Instead of a contractor being routinely put through the wringer over a small print general note buried in the specs, s/he now controls the designer and design process. The contractor now selects an architect as they would any other subcontractor - quality work performed on time for the best price. Notice how design talent doesn't figure into this equation?
When I was an architect at Corgan in the late 90's, the firm tried to set up an architect-led design/build operation. It failed for a variety of reasons, but mostly because the project architects didn't trust it. They never got that successful showpiece project that would convince the others to promote it to the firm's clients.
I recently had a conversation with one of the pricipals at Gensler. He shared something with me that I hadn't considered that I thought was fascinating. As Gensler transition's to Autodesk's BIM platform Revit, he can no longer hire interns as CAD drafters. The former model of intern learning through CAD for three years doesn't work with BIM. Now you have to understand construction in order to create the model and produce construction documents.
It seems to me that there will be an inevitable split in the architectural community ... firms that use BIM modelling and those that don't. If you believe the case studies on BIM (and I do) that there is a quantifiable labor savings and increased level of coordination, the firms that employ BIM will have a decided edge for larger and more complicated projects. The federal government (never an innovator) is rolling out an interesting 3D/BIM program here.
Those firms that continue business as usual, the same firms that haven't been able to increase their rates for the past 10 years, will be caught in a lowest-cost of service model, competing with production work out of India and China.
One could assume that the requirements for successful completion of an architectural internship reflect the priorities of NCARB for the minimum knowledge base required to be an Architect. After all, completion of the IDP means the candidate is within a few heartbeats of being a licensed seal-carrying architect.
According to NCARB:
At the completion of your internship, you should be able to:
(i) understand the relationship between construction documents and the construction contract administration process, (ii) manage field observation and documentation tasks, and (iii) evaluate completed construction for compliance with the construction documents and specifications.
NOWHERE does it say the intern should have a working knowledge of the means and methods of construction. The new architect only needs to be able to read plans, open eyes, take notes and verify the construction matches the plans. The reason the requirement is so minimal is that NCARB ONLY REQUIRES 10 OF THE INTERN'S 700 HOURS BE SPENT IN CONSTRUCTION OBSERVATION. That's the same requirement as "Professional and Community Service". No wonder young architects don't know what they're drawing.
10 hours over 3+ years! Someone please explain the logic to me.
Full disclosure ... I am a member of the AIA. I do not believe the organization has done even a mediocre job of addressing the root problems of the profession, but continue to pay the $666 per year (think that's a coincidence?) to keep AIA behind my name. Why ... the general public believes AIA=Architect and it's an important part of marketing myself and my company.
Click on the title of this blog for a link to an AIA document that describes an "intern friendly" architecture firm. You'll find (i) mentorship on professional practice, (ii) how to prepare/pass the exam (ARE), and (iii) community outreach incentives. NOWHERE IS THERE ANY MENTION OF FIELD EXPERIENCE, which I believe should be a requirement for licensure.
There is an old saying ... those who can't, teach. In this case, those who can't build, draw details that can't be built.
I found this mildly interesting article about architecture's opportunity to take the "leed" (the pun is mine) in the public's rush towards all things green. It seems a little gimmicky, but is an honest attempt to re-establish the relevency of the profession.
So the internet is the embodiment of The Information Age - allowing communication and information transfer at an unprecedented rate. The moment I hit the "publish" button on this posting, it is available to millions of eager young architects worldwide. However, the search engines that will make this blog "findable" wont crawl this site for (who knows?) maybe a month or two. That means everything I write during the embryonic stages of this blog are written in pencil. I can push the delete button on information accessible to millions before they even knew they has access to it. Time is elastic ... fascinating.
There are three basic contractual ways for an owner to hire a "builder".
1. Design/Bid/Build - The design team draws a "complete" set of construction documents and issues them to a group of general contractors to provide bids on the work. Bids can be submitted in multiple forms (lump sum, cost plus, etc.) but the intent is to use competitive pressure to get the best price for the owner. Subcontractors are contracted to the general contractor and the contractor has a single contract with the owner. There is a zero-sum relationship between owner and builder - that is, for one to win (financially), the other must lose. PROS: competitive pressure on bidders, aggressive pricing in slower markets CONS: the bids are only as good as the drawings, bids are assembled at the last minute, limited attention in busy markets, contractor is financially motivated to provide a "just good enough" product.
2. Construction Management - In this model, the construction manager acts as owner's agent, providing the supervision and project management roles of the general contractor. However, the owner has a direct contract with each of the "subcontractors". This gives the owner much greater transparency to actual construction costs, however it puts the owner in an interesting risk and management position. Many large companies feel they have more to lose through this direct relationship than they have to gain without the "one butt to kick". PROS: direct contracts reduce hidden contractor profit, more accountability from sub to owner CONS: multiple contracts to mamage, most owners do not have the expertise/comfort, lack of competitive pressure
3. Design/Build - Here the owner is signing up for a turn-key product from the design builder. PROS: the design/builder is responsible for everything the owner communicates to him, no finger-pointing between architect and contractor, contractor is involved with the design process CONS: the D/B team is usually not good at both design and construction, all eggs in one basket, usual checks-and-balance not available
There are infinite variations to the compensation and risk-sharing inside each of these formats, but what should be obvious is that one size does not fit all.
Let's describe the role of the builder. Unless you're dealing with a very small project, the contractor functions (i) as a BROKER of the required trades (ie, plumbing, electrical, drywall, roofing, etc.) and (ii) and a SUPERVISOR/COORDINATOR of said trades. The contractor will provide a superintendent(s) to coordinate the micro (fit, finish, three week look-ahead schedule, materials, deliveries, permits, inspections, etc) on the job site and a project manager(s) to coordinate the macro (bidding, contracts, insurance, coordination with owner, etc). The contractor likely DOES NOT employ the tradesmen doing the actual construction.
So as a young architect going to a construction site, a good indication of the quality of the contractor is the condition of the site....
1. Is it clean? "clean" is relative to the stage of construction, but scrap material and trash scattered around the site is an indication the superintendent doesn't control the subs. It's also dangerous, which means the superintendent isn't being supervised.
2. Is it safe? Look for fall hazards that don't have barricades, workers without hard hats, overflowing trash containers, dangerous scaffolding, etc.
3. Is it productive? Look for workers actually installing material (screws, nails, welding, etc). If you see lots of people walking, they are wasting time.
So, the key to good building is the superintendent. In this business, the squeaky wheel gets the grease as the subcontracted firms are balancing workers across multiple projects. A good superintendent will push the subs. A bad superintendent will let the subs work their own schedule with whatever staffing they wish. These jobs are always slower with lesser quality than a driven job.
I found this link to a young architect getting his hands dirty. Love it! .... and at the same time it reinforces my frustration with an educational process that didn't have him mudding drywall before he was 25 years old. Seems like a thoughtful guy. Check it out ... http://ercwttmn.blogspot.com/2006/10/outside-work.html
The new Centerpoint Builders web page is up and running. Thanks to our web designers at One Fast Buffalo. Here's a preview of the company's work at Cooper Aerobics Center in McKinney, Texas.
