|
|
|
|
There will always be a strong need for the architectural profession as long as architects are known as people who think clearly. Poorly worded contract language makes one neither environmentally sensitive nor environmentally insensitive. Clients, in my experience, need and expect us to be careful. One can be careful and useful and imaginative, and knowledgeable, and even bold. I also do not think this is a matter of tying ourselves in knots over the legal implications of practice. It is simply a recognition that our services begin with a clear statement of what we are going to do. Words like "responsible" lie at the other end of the teeter totter. A focus on what we can and cannot do as individual architects seems like a good foundation for building a relevant future for the profession. I'm not a pessimist. All the best, Donald ------------------------------------------- Donald Wardlaw AIA More Than Construction, Inc. Oakland CA -------------------------------------------
Show Original Message
-------------------------------------------
Original Message:
Sent: 04-25-2012 11:50
From: Eugene Ely
Subject: Environmentally Responsible Design Approaches
My complete surprise at the nature of the responses of Mr Underwood and Mr Wardlaw to Mr Cox's inquiry led me to a rereading of Mr Cox's original questions. I had previously responded directly to Mr Cox that his questions seemed misguided as a result of not appreciating that the paragraphs he cited were basic services and not "separate and above good practice". But my rereading of the language of the paragraphs cited does make me understand better where Mr Cox is coming from. The language in the paragraphs does seem to imply that environmentally responsible design is an alternative to be considered and possibly incorporated, not a given of standard practice.
That said, the concerns from Mr Underwood and Mr Wardlaw about liability implications and legal implications of these contract provisions are part of the mindset that has gotten our profession to where it is today, borderline irrelevant. We've allowed lawyers and insurance companies to define the parameters of architectural practice to the point where we don't take responsibility for anything anymore. We've ceded the high ground of 'Master Builder' terrain to contractors, construction managers, and some design build entities willing to take risks and willing to convince owners to pay for that risk taking. My vision of the future of conventional architecture practice is grim, I don't see it existing very far into the future. I hope that there are braver, more optimistic people out there to prove me wrong. Those people will need to come to grips with this unhealthy focus on liability and figure out a way to move forward with a vision of what architecture CAN do and not on what it shouldn't do.
-------------------------------------------
Eugene Ely AIA, LEED AP
Sr Project Architect
San Jose, CA
-------------------------------------------
-------------------------------------------
Original Message:
Sent: 04-24-2012 11:12
From: Donald Wardlaw
Subject: Environmentally Responsible Design Approaches
To me this is no different than reaching into my shower and setting the temperature for me. I'd say it is out of place for AIA to include language like this, confusing as stated and bound to create hard to define performance duties for the architect which will lead to hard to bear liabilities. All in all a good reason not to use the AIA Owner Architect form.
All the best,
Donald
-------------------------------------------
Donald Wardlaw AIA
More Than Construction, Inc.
Oakland CA
-------------------------------------------
-------------------------------------------
Original Message:
Sent: 04-23-2012 12:09
From: Steven Cox
Subject: Environmentally Responsible Design Approaches
This message has been cross posted to the following Discussion Forums: Project Delivery and Committee on Design .
-------------------------------------------
Under the AIA B101-2007, in the Schematic Design Phase Services section (para. 3.2.3), the architect is contractually obligated to "...discuss with the Owner alternative approaches to design and construction of the Project, including the feasibility of incorporating environmentally responsible design approaches."
Paragraph 3.2.5.1 does go further in the description: "The Architect shall consider environmentally responsible design alternatives, such as material choices and building orientation, together with other considerations based on program and aesthetics, in developing a design that is consistent with the Owner's program, schedule and budget for the Cost of the Work."
Does this language imply that:
- Under our normal standard design services, we architects are creating environmentally irresponsible designs?
- Building orientation and material choices are normally selected at random, unless you opt for the environmentally responsible design alternatives?
My next questions would be; - How does the AIA define "environmentally responsible design" as separate and above standard good practice?
- What additional fees are justified with these "alternative approaches"?
I think this muddy language is all precursor to "sustainable" design issues being considered for future AIA contracts. Steven Cox AIA
President
Cox Architecture
Mccomb MS
-------------------------------------------
|
|
Be the first person to recommend this.
|