You know you're an Architect when...

[Mammoth]

You know you're an Architecture Student when...
1. ...the alarm clock tells you when to go to sleep.
....
25...Your four basic food groups are candy, caffeine, coffee, and pretzels.


I love these...there is a better one on facebook somewhere, but as i'm idealistically opposed to it, i am unable to find it

funny thing about this is that all of them are true

Sweet, sounds like my future career.

 

[mactastic]

I can usually bite my tongue but this just plain pissed me off.

I spent 6 years in university to become a civil engineer and we do a hell of a lot more than just make buildings stand up. that's just disrespectful. you might not see all of the science and physics that goes into making a building not fall on your head, but we do - we have to... afterall, it's our ass that's on the line. and yes, there is a notoriously bad relationship between engineers and architects (mostly because architects dream up big beautiful things that are hard to build) but not all engineers go around trying to make architects look bad.

i guess all i'm trying to say is watch the generalizations... you never know who's toes you might be stepping on.

Trust me, I see all the science and physics. After all, I'm responsible to the client if you fail to perform.

It's funny to hear you say to "watch the generalizations" when in the previous sentence you generalize about how the relationship between engineers and architects is only sour because architects dream up big beautiful buildings that are hard to build.

It's hard to take someone seriously when they contradict themselves like that.

The way I see it, there is definitely a problem with SOME architects who do not understand structural systems, and there are problems with SOME engineers who find it necessary to blame the architect when they have difficulty engineering the architects vision. It's the foibles of people, not the professions they inhabit.

 

[skunk]

It's funny to hear you say to "watch the generalizations" when in the previous sentence you generalize about how the relationship between engineers and architects is only sour because architects dream up big beautiful buildings that are hard to build.

It's hard to take someone seriously when they contradict themselves like that.

I don't think you're being fair here, Mac. She said "mostly", not "only". Nor is "hard to build" necessarily a criticism.

 

[mactastic]

I don't think you're being fair here, Mac. He said "mostly", not "only". Nor is "hard to build" necessarily a criticism.

It shouldn't be, but it has been treated as such here.

And he did say the relationship is sour "mostly" because of issues with the architects. Which, in my experience, is only half the story.

 

[imac/cheese]

It is like anything... a few bad apples spoil the whole barrel. Some of the most competent, hard-working, and skillful people I have ever worked with have been architects. I have also worked with a few that have more art ability than sense and one who thought because he was a licensed architect that he was also qualified to be an engineer, appraisor, lawyer, and surveyor.

 

[wimic]

It's hard to take someone seriously when they contradict themselves like that.

It's hardly a contradiction - perhaps you should read it again... i don't see the word 'only' in there anywhere.

It shouldn't be, but it has been treated as such here.

you have an interesting way of interpreting what people say... i guess "big beautiful things" is an inuslt too? perhaps you should take a long look at the way you perceive what others say versus what they actually mean... especially before you point that critical finger of yours at them.

Just to clarify - I'm a woman (that one's for you skunk )

 

[skunk]

Just to clarify - I'm a woman (that one's for you skunk )

Mille fois pardon, mademoiselle l'ingénieur!

 

[wimic]

Mille fois pardon, mademoiselle l'ingénieur!

Pas un problème

 

[mactastic]

It's hardly a contradiction - perhaps you should read it again... i don't see the word 'only' in there anywhere.

I read it plenty of times. Perhaps you should rephrase it if you are not intending to insult an entire profession?

yes, there is a notoriously bad relationship between engineers and architects (mostly because architects dream up big beautiful things that are hard to build)

Let's look at the sentence in question. The word "mostly" is a reference to the "notoriously bad relationship between engineers and architects". Why does this occur, you posit? "Mostly" because of the Architects, you argue, and their penchant for dreaming up "big beautiful things that are hard to build".

I say that's only half the story, if that. You are free to believe that your profession has little (opposite of most?) of the blame for the sour relationship, but if your arguments are any indication I would say there just might be a little more to it than feeling inadequatly prepared to engineer a complicated structure.

you have an interesting way of interpreting what people say... i guess "big beautiful things" is an inuslt too? perhaps you should take a long look at the way you perceive what others say versus what they actually mean... especially before you point that critical finger of yours at them.

You might as well take your own advice. That post that teed you off to start with was nowhere near what you took it as. Perhaps you view "things standing up" as an insult too?

Obligatory

 

[Phat Elvis]

I saw this a while ago - enjoy:

 

[wimic]

"Mostly" because of the Architects, you argue, and their penchant for dreaming up "big beautiful things that are hard to build"...... but if your arguments are any indication I would say there just might be a little more to it than feeling inadequatly prepared to engineer a complicated structure.

Wow... you're so coy and witty... I'm envious.

I can assure you - I'm neither intimidated by nor unprepared to build anything that can be built.

I have better things to do with my time than defend my profession (and myself it seems) against ignorant remarks so this will be the last thing you’ll hear from me.

 

[skunk]

Let's look at the sentence in question. The word "mostly" is a reference to the "notoriously bad relationship between engineers and architects". Why does this occur, you posit? "Mostly" because of the Architects, you argue, and their penchant for dreaming up "big beautiful things that are hard to build".

Mac, I still think you're taking this unnecessarily to heart. To me, the sentence says that the bad relationship occurs because of the challenges posed by the demands of the architect's grand vision. but the fact that the challenge can be met, is often difficult to meet, and is often maddening, and that it is the architect's job to make such demands, does not have to reflect badly on either profession. There is a similarly charged relationship between a politician and a general, again not necessarily the fault of either professional, simply a reflection of the natural conflict between the demands of their respective professions.

 

[mactastic]

Mac, I still think you're taking this unnecessarily to heart. To me, the sentence says that the bad relationship occurs because of the challenges posed by the demands of the architect's grand vision. but the fact that the challenge can be met, is often difficult to meet, and is often maddening, and that it is the architect's job to make such demands, does not have to reflect badly on either profession. There is a similarly charged relationship between a politician and a general, again not necessarily the fault of either professional, simply a reflection of the natural conflict between the demands of their respective professions.

I think you're taking an overly charitable view of her statement. As they say, it takes two to tango. You can't tell me one side is overtly more at fault for "the poor relationship" (an overly broad generalization -- I've got no problems with my current Structural Engineer, nor him with me; nor have I had any kind of poor relationship with any SE that I have worked with) than the other. If there is such strain in the relationship, it's most likely because of such pig-headed attitudes as "it's mostly the other guy's fault, and certainly not MINE".

 

[skunk]

I've got no problems with my current Structural Engineer, nor him with me; nor have I had any kind of poor relationship with any SE that I have worked with) than the other.

You are clearly a paragon. Many architect/engineer relationships I have been privy to verge on the "love/hate" type, usually moderated by a good sense of humour and a recognition by each side of the foibles of the other.

 

[jczubach]

trust a thread about architects to get all defensive and weepy. I graduated from the university of manitoba, many morons ago, with their bachelor degree in architecture and i've yet to meet in my 20 yrs.+ since, a bigger bunch of crybabies, wanna-bees, and generally obtuse goofs. Could never continue that course of my education w/out 3 more years of indoctrination. I'm not particularly bitter, but heck! One ******* there actually changed his name to sound more "arkeetekteral" - "Bridges" oh c'mon, I nearly wet myself.

 

[mactastic]

You are clearly a paragon. Many architect/engineer relationships I have been privy to verge on the "love/hate" type, usually moderated by a good sense of humour and a recognition by each side of the foibles of the other.

Which is all I'm saying. I'm not trying to pin the overarching blame for any problems on one side or the other. Yeah, there are screw ups that occur in the drawings on both ends, and the negotiatians over how much fault each side accepts can be painful. But that's the normal back-and-forth that occurs on these kinds of projects; and should be handled on a case-by-case basis.

That's not the indictment she made. Her accusation was that it is "mostly" the architect's fault for dreaming big. That is simply uninformed drivel.

 

[mactastic]

trust a thread about architects to get all defensive and weepy. I graduated from the university of manitoba, many morons ago, with their bachelor degree in architecture and i've yet to meet in my 20 yrs.+ since, a bigger bunch of crybabies, wanna-bees, and generally obtuse goofs. Could never continue that course of my education w/out 3 more years of indoctrination. I'm not particularly bitter, but heck! One ******* there actually changed his name to sound more "arkeetekteral" - "Bridges" oh c'mon, I nearly wet myself.

Wow... now there's another person who can't resist the sweeping generalization either.

Besides, many of those who are "goofs" in college wash out along the way. I forget what the percentage is, but something under 20% of those who even make it to graduation actually go on to licensure.

There's an awful lot of jealous undercurrent in this thread it seems.

 

[hmmfe]

Of course it's inadequate design. The question is, who pays for what. Under the concept of added value, the owner is not paying any more than they should have, had the design been perfect from the get-go. If the project has progressed to the point where extra work is required to add the beam, then yes the Architect is responsible.

Interesting concept. Do you happen to remember any of the case law citations (not questioning but I'd like to read)? I am curious, though. How are these things usually bid? In my work, if I bid a project and screw it up in any way, or run over budget because I forgot to include certain materials that were necessary, I eat them. I am really not certain if I am legally required to do so, I just see it as the ethical thing to do. Of course, if a particular project is vague I will certainly include language in the bid that costs might be higher due to some circumstance or unknown.

 

[adrianblaine]

trust a thread about architects to get all defensive and weepy. I graduated from the university of manitoba, many morons ago, with their bachelor degree in architecture and i've yet to meet in my 20 yrs.+ since, a bigger bunch of crybabies, wanna-bees, and generally obtuse goofs. Could never continue that course of my education w/out 3 more years of indoctrination. I'm not particularly bitter, but heck! One ******* there actually changed his name to sound more "arkeetekteral" - "Bridges" oh c'mon, I nearly wet myself.

I have never heard a more stereotypical statement in my life. Are you sure it's not just Canadian architects/architecture students (stereotype #1 meet stereotype #2) who are like this?

Mactastic is right. Most of those people will never go on to be an architect.

 

[mactastic]

Interesting concept. Do you happen to remember any of the case law citations (not questioning but I'd like to read)? I am curious, though. How are these things usually bid? In my work, if I bid a project and screw it up in any way, or run over budget because I forgot to include certain materials that were necessary, I eat them. I am really not certain if I am legally required to do so, I just see it as the ethical thing to do. Of course, if a particular project is vague I will certainly include language in the bid that costs might be higher due to some circumstance or unknown.

Here's some light reading for you.

 

[hmmfe]

Here's some light reading for you.

Thanks. It seems like this is just argument from existing principles of law (unjust enrichment, standard of care, etc.). I was interested to see if the architectural profession had specific case law pertaining to their profession (like construction, medical, sports, etc.).

It seems that the crux of the issue comes down to the nature of the contract negotiated by the client and architect.

There are conditions in the general contractor’s contract that require them
to provide “complete” or fully functional systems and assemblies, but
the architect is not ordinarily bound to such conditions. The architect
is not responsible for the work or a “complete” scope.

I am wondering how often this argument succeeds at trial. According to the article, 97% of all cases are settled out of court. I guess I'll have to do some searching on lexus...

Thanks for the info!