Although it deserves its own thread, and we digress a bit, I have to agree wholeheartedly that with each decade I have seen construction documents (when issued to builders) that are less 'informed' when it comes to technical aspects - the 'firmatis'.
In recent years there seems to be an effort to reduce or streamline the 'learning' and 'experience' that are mandatory before one can become licensed. Perhaps this has been driven by the declining numbers of aspirants (so schools and boards are trying to make it easier, thus boosting the numbers). Maybe its the entitlement trend among our younger compatriots (I know everything I need when I get out of school, so should start out with a job as 'designer'). I think the 'quicker to license' effort is ill-advised. If anything I believe the process should be long and demanding, for many reasons - and that applicants should be well rounded in both the art and science of architecture.
It is undeniable that as our field becomes increasingly more complex it becomes hard (? impossible) for anyone to become the legendary 'master designer and builder' of history. Computerization has only made things worse. There is a belief that because a machine can turn out slick drawings, and BIM models, they are accurate, correct, constructible, and can be relied on by all involved. Not so. I can't tell you how many times I've found details and even whole systems that were physically impossible to construct, ill-conceived in terms of functionality, etc. (as I'm sure others have also observed). That is because the new ease of drafting complicated parts no longer demands that the designer actually understand how the parts work and interface.
For as long as I can remember I have taken the position that before considering oneself qualified to design entire buildings (well, perhaps I should exclude truly small buildings) the student should have to spend time in the field, in a variety of trades and building types, alongside tradesmen and superintendents. How much time, and how that time is structured in real time is a subject that can be much debated. But I will always believe that if you don't know how to plan, assemble and trouble-shoot the 'stuff' you are asking others to build you will always be operating from a deficit position.
An appreciation for the manual aspects of our industry can only make us better at the 'art' side. But, as noted above, it seems there is increasingly less time devoted to learning the 'science' part - to our own detriment. You can't rely on manufacturers and product reps, supplemented by photos of attractive projects, to make you 'experienced'. You need to understand (I mean, really understand) every 'bit' you are drawing, absorb what your consultants are telling you, appreciate how all the pieces of the puzzle integrate, and be the orchestra leader that turns it all into something that makes your artistic vision play like a symphony.
So, I agree. Learn more and be patient. If it took 6, 8, 10 years to learn our craft 50 years ago, why should we think it ought to be easier now, when we must master one that has become far more complicated?
I will always choose the apprentice that knows BIM and also how to pound a nail, over one that only knows how to cut and paste. How ironic that some think you don't need to know much about how to put things together in order to design them. Would you take the same conceptual approach when choosing a brain surgeon?
Sorry for 'going on'... it's been a long day!
------------------------------
Howard I. Littman, AIA, Emeritus
Forensic Architect, Expert Witness
Agoura Hills, CA
------------------------------
Original Message:
Sent: 05-08-2017 18:32
From: David Altenhofen
Subject: Institute Honor Awards
Mr. Ehlinger, I believe you have hit on one of the key problems. Architecture and building science has gotten more complicated over the years. The architectural education system has not done a good job of keeping up. In my experience very few practicing architects let alone architectural graduates understand the fundamental forces that drive water through an opening and how to control those forces. They do not understand even the most basic principles of a psychometric chart and how water vapor diffuses through materials and why/where/when it condenses. They do not understand the three means of heat transfer and how to control each. They do not understand how air infiltration occurs and the issues of moisture transport along with air flow. Most architects cannot describe the generic wall assembly types and how they control the transport of heat air and moisture. In other words, architectural education is not providing the basic scientific principals that provide a foundation for the real technical and detailing skills they will hopefully learn in an office.
Our profession is so completely focused on design that we gloss over most everything else and I think it makes us a less and less important profession. I have a daughter who is only 3 years out of architecture school and i worry about her future. My concern is that architects will take the project to approximately the equivalent of DDs and then the project will be turned over to firms with technical people that get the building built. Frequently those technical people all work for a construction firm and are engineers and contractors with only a few technically inclined architects. This is already a common method of delivery in other parts of the world. The architects role gets further and further diminished as we step away from the Master Builder model. Frankly the quality of design suffers in the because the aesthetic sensitivity gets cut out of the fine scale detailing.
Wrapping back to the original post, don't we imply we don't care about energy, community connectivity, water, materials and building performance by not even giving these issues mention in awarded projects? How much stronger would we be as a profession if we valued these issues to the point of being a prerequisite for an award.
------------------------------
David Altenhofen AIA
The Facade Group
Philadelphia PA
------------------------------
Original Message:
Sent: 05-06-2017 08:44
From: Ladd Ehlinger
Subject: Institute Honor Awards
Howard:
I'm. Sorry that I wasn't more succinct, but we are definitely on the same page.
You and I have roughly the same amount of experience: I am a 64 graduate, and have been doing forensic work and correcting projects for about 32 years.
My opinion is slightly different than yours for about the last 10 years though. My impression is that the Architect now is the prime entity at fault - mostly because of the changes in the educational system due to NAAB. Unlike other professions, the architectural schools rarely have practicing teachers, at least that's the case at the 4 schools in LA. Not only that, I've been told by several of the Deans that practice and constructability are not important issues in architectural education.
Therefore, today's students don't get courses I got, or they get way less than I did: no materials of construction courses, no working drawings courses, no rendering courses, 2 semesters of architectural history instead of 4, 1/3 the structures courses (can't design a simple beam), no descriptive geometry, or shades and shadows. Today's students are being taught implicitly that computer skills are a substitute for architectural skills - yet they cannot tell you what a Cartesian coordinate system is, that is the root of the CAD system they are so glib with.
I am not opposed to computers in Architecture: I pioneered it beginning in 1978, and was producing whole projects (structural and other calcs, specs, MEP, and all drawings) by 1981, and have done so since. I am opposed to the schools not teaching the courses mentioned above as they are all better learned in a school environment rather than an office, which is where the students ar told by the schools that they will learn these skills.
My opinion is that these poorly educated architects are the ones committing the errors. I am also very concerned about the future of the profession as a result.
Ladd
------------------------------
Ladd Ehlinger AIA
President
Ehlinger & Associates PC
Metairie LA
------------------------------
Original Message:
Sent: 05-04-2017 19:34
From: Howard Littman, Emeritus
Subject: Institute Honor Awards
Ladd, if my comment seemed an over-reaction, I apologize. I do not think we are really on different pages.
My reaction only resulted from the fact that in your post you cited deficiencies but did not further clarify that the deficiencies resulted from designer negligence (as opposed to contractor error). My response to yours was only to point out that a project should be not denied recognition only because it suffers from physical problems.
We both have a lot of mileage behind us - in my case 45+ years, 25+ of those as a forensic specialist, during which time I've handled over $3 billion in claims. I imagine both of us have seen things that would surprise most designers. However, my experience has been that the great majority of 'significant' problems flow from contractor error, whereas the small minority are attributable to designer error/omission. I would agree that as to many 'fatal' flaws (as in your example), designer error is key. Like you, I imagine, I have dealt with situations where a single ill-considered (or 'not considered') decision by an A/E has led to remedial work amounting to tens of millions of dollars at a stroke.
In respect of this it has long been my feeling that our designer-focused publications should be more up front about disclosing and discussing these kinds of failures. In past, only the most egregious have made it into the public eye (as with the Hyatt bridge, or the Hancock window wall). I think we need to be more self-critical so that our younger compatriots can learn from the errors of their predecessors (instead of repeating predictable and avoidable errors).
Hand in hand should be a frank disclosure of problems with projects submitted or considered for award status - along with an Owner/User endorsement (to include the several other factors earlier posters have mentioned).
Respectfully,
Howard
------------------------------
Howard I. Littman, AIA, Emeritus
Forensic Architect, Expert Witness
Agoura Hills, CA
------------------------------
Original Message:
Sent: 04-24-2017 18:19
From: Ladd Ehlinger
Subject: Institute Honor Awards
Howard:
I am perplexed as to how you can disagree with my perception, since I didn't list reasons for the leaks, deflection, etc. I only implied reasons and stated my conclusions.
Actually, it has been my experience and perception that in most building failures, it starts with a failed design - the Architect's fault. The Architect's failure then gets compounded by construction error by the Contractor.
For instance, I am dealing right now with a failed publicly owned building that has to remain open during hurricanes with a 130 MPH wind speed and the attendant pressures produced by it = +48.1 PSF at the 4th floor Zone 5 per ASCE - 7. The original design Architect used a "rainscreen principle" cladding (foam filled metal panel) that is self supporting when attached, with an integral window system, that allows water in to weep out later in theory, and all are rated for 12 PSF. There is no water-tight back-up wall designed by the original Architect with sheathing and a WRB, so when the water gets past the rainscreen of the cladding, it is inside the building wall or the building itself. The 12 PSF rating does not begin to comply with the code mandated required pressures.
The contractor mis-installed this under-designed wall / window system such that, when tested in-situ per ASTM E-1105, does not even perform at the rated 12 PSF, much less the code required 48.1 PSF.
Yet, this building is the type done by Architect's to get published and to win Honor Awards.
You mis-perceived my comments which were intended to compliment and reinforce yours - your loss.
Ladd