Am I being too sensitive or should I be concerned.

[MikeSharp01]

Today our architects sent me back a number of details, second drafts, on the first, still to look at the rest, I identified 8 (Eight) issues including two cold bridges around the main front window, essentially both sides! Don't get me wrong I really like working with our architects, they treat me as an 'intelligent' client (well that is how it feels but I suppose its possible that they are just humouring me) and it also feels like we are a team. I think my concern is that they may have begun to get the idea that I am up to quality control for their work - they ask me if its buildable, if I could do their job I would not need an Architect, rather than them having some internal process that removes issues such as cold bridges from a Passive House design.

 

My conundrums (not conundra) are:

 

1. How many times should I expect to go around this loop of commenting on the drawings?
2. Who carries the PI claim if incorporating my, perhaps naive, ideas results in problems later?

 

 

[ToughButterCup]

Too sensitive.

Two years after we accepted our design we are still nudging this or deleting that. We minute  every meeting and review the architect's  fees two or three times a year.

It's his job to tell us that this or that won't work because.... Sam made an exact  1 meter error in the levels the other day. He was grateful that I picked it up. 

 

It's a partnership. 

[TerryE]

We went around the review loop 3 times with our TA and then had to do a MMA which required another.  I then got to Design Review F with my frame and slab manufacturer and we still missed a couple of things.  With a passive house and achieving target performance, the devil is in the detail. 

[nod]

14 hours ago, MikeSharp01 said:

Today our architects sent me back a number of details, second drafts, on the first, still to look at the rest, I identified 8 (Eight) issues including two cold bridges around the main front window, essentially both sides! Don't get me wrong I really like working with our architects, they treat me as an 'intelligent' client (well that is how it feels but I suppose its possible that they are just humouring me) and it also feels like we are a team. I think my concern is that they may have begun to get the idea that I am up to quality control for their work - they ask me if its buildable, if I could do their job I would not need an Architect, rather than them having some internal process that removes issues such as cold bridges from a Passive House design.

 

My conundrums (not conundra) are:

 

1. How many times should I expect to go around this loop of commenting on the drawings?
2. Who carries the PI claim if incorporating my, perhaps naive, ideas results in problems later?

 

 

One thing I have learned is you don't need an Architect If you have a structural engineer. Most designs are based on drawings already in circulation. My working drawing reads as follows. Foundations refer to SE design. Floor refer to Floor beam design. Same with the chamber floor and roof and steels and drains. Money for old rope.

[ToughButterCup]

8 hours ago, nod said:

[...] Most designs are based on drawing already in circulation [...]

 

And we wonder why there are so many houses that look exactly the same, same old same old.

 

Imagination hits builders right in the bank balance. And we can't have that now can we? Customers don't like it.

[daiking]

Special flowers, innit?

 

how often does your doctor ask you for your unprofessional opinion?

[AliG]

I try and check everything my architect sends out and then comment back if I see errors or disagree. If for no other reasons two sets of eyes are better than one. The builder recently made some small errors that I spotted and had to be rectified. In my line of work these kinds of errors would just be unacceptable as we have regulators and customers who would come down on us like a ton of bricks. In the building trade making errors and then wasting money correcting them just seems to be par for the course.

 

As to cold bridging, unless your architect is a specialist in passive design, it's just not something architects are that focused on. I have had numerous discussions about it and the view I get back is usually I am being too picky and they don't really matter. I suspect that this is true sometimes and not other times.

 

As to any claims, if your architect changes something on your say, he is still the architect and has to accept responsibility. He shouldn't change anything he is not comfortable with.

[ToughButterCup]

22 minutes ago, daiking said:

how often does your doctor ask you for your unprofessional opinion?

 

Every time I walk in his office.

"So, Ian, what's the matter then?"  

"Rather thought you might be able to tell me Doc. "

[ProDave]

Is it necessary for the drawings to be perfect?

 

Yes for things like foundations.

 

but certainly on my build, a lot of the finer details are being worked out / improved upon as we actually build it.
 

[daiking]

1 hour ago, recoveringacademic said:

 

Every time I walk in his office.

"So, Ian, what's the matter then?"  

"Rather thought you might be able to tell me Doc. "

 

I'm a mechanical engineer for an industrial site (largest of its type in Europe) about 60(?) miles north west of you.

 

I can't get away with asking the office cleaners if they think my calcs look ok or whether a weld procedure meets the necessary quality requirement. But I only did 3 years so what do I know? 

 

(And many of our good designers don't even have that)

Edited December 22, 2016 by daiking

[MikeSharp01]

Thanks all. We are at the detailed drawings stage and my concern is to get it right now so building it has very limited room for error / interpretation. I am happy to pay the architect for the detailed drawings but less happy asking for changes down the line, after the fixed price bit us finished, cos I didn't /could not have been expected to spot an issue. The point about just reusing existing robust details is taken but these need to be contextualised for the specific build. One thing I have had is a drawing that shows profiled tiles around roof lights even though we have flat tiles. 

 

Will just keep on keeping on.

 

[jamiehamy]

4 hours ago, ProDave said:

Is it necessary for the drawings to be perfect?

 

Yes for things like foundations.

 

but certainly on my build, a lot of the finer details are being worked out / improved upon as we actually build it.
 

Same here.  

[Vijay]

I agree that things will change as you build but I believe you still need something set in stone to work from that's actually as right as it can be before you start

[joe90]

21 hours ago, Vijay said:

I agree that things will change as you build but I believe you still need something set in stone to work from that's actually as right as it can be before you start

I agree totally, but we have just decided to change some window sizes after discussing them with a window supplier. What I will NOT do tho is change something after it's been built. 

[TerryE]

9 hours ago, Sensus said:

On the other hand, your average squirrel knows more about cold bridging than most of the Structural Engineers I've met...

 

I am not sure how much further up that scale to put most architects!

[TerryE]

Woooo-you I would suspect that quite a few of the self-builders here could give 90% of architects a run for their money when it comes to understanding cold bridging issues

Edited December 27, 2016 by TerryE
Make implicit hook to cold bridging point explicit. I wouldn't make this claim in general.

[jamiehamy]

11 hours ago, Sensus said:

It absolutely should not, under any circumstances, be the client's job to check this sort of technical detail on Architect's drawings. The client checks should be limited to "yes, you've incorporated all the design features I asked you to, and I think it looks pretty", not whether there is an unacceptable cold bridge on a window detail, or checking that the dimensions add up correctly.

 

 

 

If you want your project, whether it be a self build or any project else to be a failure, then this is most certainly the right way to go about it. You are not wrong, but in my experience in prpjects over the years, the input of everyone is valuable, essential, and should never be ignored or discounted without proper consideration. IN fact, the input of the person with the least expertise in a subject often has the best perspective and should be listened to the most. 

 

 

 

 

 

[Jeremy Harris]

On 27/12/2016 at 21:40, jamiehamy said:

 

If you want your project, whether it be a self build or any project else to be a failure, then this is most certainly the right way to go about it. You are not wrong, but in my experience in prpjects over the years, the input of everyone is valuable, essential, and should never be ignored or discounted without proper consideration. IN fact, the input of the person with the least expertise in a subject often has the best perspective and should be listened to the most. 

 

 

The wisest words I've heard in a long time.

 

Outside our self-build, I've managed some fairly large projects.  Biggest was the replacement for the old Lynx helo, budget initially around £1.4bn, last before retirement, a much smaller project, relocation of all UK defence research to two major centres, including a building project that cost around £95M. 

 

The biggest lesson I learned, fairly early on, was "listen and take heed of everyone, no matter where they rank in the programme hierarchy, as more often than not, it's those lower down the "food chain" that make the most incisive observations and contribute some of the greatest benefits".

 

As for architects, yes, they are OK at art and design.  Yes, they add value by giving your house the touches that only an artistic eye can bring to a task, but every single one I've met, with a single exception, wouldn't have a clue about designing a low energy house, and, from tales I've heard from many, many, other self builders, most really couldn't give a monkey's about detail design - they chuck that over the wall for an engineer to try and solve.

 

The reason we didn't use an architect?  After weeks spent going around talking to local architectural practices, giving them a topo plan, some sketch ideas and an 8 point ordered, bullet brief, they ALL, produced such crap initial sketches, that didn't even meet out most important criterion, that I gave up on them as a waste of space.

 

I would have used an architectural technician, though.  We spoke at length to a really good one, who wasn't so far up his own backside as to be happy to listen to others with technical input, and take heed of what they were saying. I'd have gladly used him, but during the year's delay overcoming our plot purchase problems he decided to retire, which left a bit of a gap.  The result was I decided to do the task myself, simply because I didn't trust any of the architects I'd met to design a dolls house to the required spec.

[Construction Channel]

6 minutes ago, Sensus said:

I'm saying that he or she shouldn't need to check the technical detail on the drawings and certainly shouldn't be relied upon to do so... so if you're picking up errors in any number, you need to have stern words with your Architect: it's simply not acceptable.

 

I think this is a fair point, and should not be necessary, 

The problem is WHEN do you bring it up? the later it is noticed almost certainly the more expensive the remedy will be. Worst case scenario would be having to pay trades to wait about while the architect draws up ("Free?") amendments. 

 

I think it largely depends on the scenario, If it is for house bashers then the architect should possibly be left to get on with their Job.

varying one offs like a lot of the people here are trying to create will take a lot more collaboration...IMO

[PeterW]

34 minutes ago, Construction Channel said:

the problem is WHEN do you bring it up? the later it is noticed almost certainly the more expensive the remedy will be.

 

So my background is engineering systems and large scale transportation - think £100m tube overhauls ..! One of our biggest challenges was "design for maintenance" - we had the ability to strip down pretty much anything on a CAD workstation to prove it could be maintained in the future. 

 

The value ..?? We found an issue in the design for the new tube carriage around the air con units and maintenance - a bolt that could not be removed when the roof had been glued on. 

 

Cost to fix in CAD..? About £50k. 

 

Cost to fix in production ..?? About £5m....

 

sometimes it's the "daft question" that isn't as daft as it seems ... 

[Stones]

1 hour ago, Sensus said:

 

I'm certainly not saying that the self-builder shouldn't check the drawings. Neither am I saying that their opinion should be discounted or ignored. I'm saying that he or she shouldn't need to check the technical detail on the drawings and certainly shouldn't be relied upon to do so... so if you're picking up errors in any number, you need to have stern words with your Architect: it's simply not acceptable.

 

Contrary to RA's post, it's NOT a partnership. You're paying the Architect to act professionally and in your best interest, using his or her superior knowledge and experience; you should have an expectation that they know what they're doing, will manage their own quality control, and will get it right. That's what you're paying them for.

 

 

Absolutely agree that you shouldn't need to check or be relied upon to do so, but it's simply a reality of life that mistakes get made / details get omitted. You could argue that is how the professional responds when he does make an error that he shows his true worth.

 

Where does a client stand during or at the end of a build (assuming an architect is supervising) he finds a problem which is wholly down to an error/mistake/omission by the architect?

 

1 hour ago, jamiehamy said:

 

If you want your project, whether it be a self build or any project else to be a failure, then this is most certainly the right way to go about it. You are not wrong, but in my experience in prpjects over the years, the input of everyone is valuable, essential, and should never be ignored or discounted without proper consideration. IN fact, the input of the person with the least expertise in a subject often has the best perspective and should be listened to the most. 

 

+1

 

1 hour ago, JSHarris said:

 

The biggest lesson I learned, fairly early on, was "listen and take heed of everyone, no matter where they rank in the programme hierarchy, as more often than not, it's those lower down the "food chain" that make the most incisive observations and contribute some of the greatest benefits.

 

 

+1

 

Something that many of the 'managers' I encountered over the years didn't like doing or discounted.

[Ferdinand]

1 hour ago, PeterW said:

 

So my background is engineering systems and large scale transportation - think £100m tube overhauls ..! One of our biggest challenges was "design for maintenance" - we had the ability to strip down pretty much anything on a CAD workstation to prove it could be maintained in the future. 

 

The value ..?? We found an issue in the design for the new tube carriage around the air con units and maintenance - a bolt that could not be removed when the roof had been glued on. 

 

Cost to fix in CAD..? About £50k. 

 

Cost to fix in production ..?? About £5m....

 

sometimes it's the "daft question" that isn't as daft as it seems ... 

 

The old PM rule: cost increases x10 for each stage later in the project it is corrected.

 

The old book to read: The Mythical Man Month.

 

F

[TerryE]

1 hour ago, Sensus said:

The people who wrote the books about thermal bridging that Terry once read were Architects, and the knowledge was disseminated by University Architecture departments. If you think you know more about it than they do, you're kidding yourself, 'cos for the most part you're just repeating third-hand what they have taught.

 

@Sensus, I want to disagree with you on this one.  In my view, an understanding of thermal bridging is more to do with engineering, material sciences and physics.  I wonder how many architects have heard of Fourier's Law or the heat equation or know how to go about solving it or to use packages such as HEAT3D or other more general maths libraries?  (The sort of thing that I discussed in this blog post).  Your statement is a generalisation, but you have no knowledge of individuals' expertise, so it is dangerous to claim it as an induction.  For example I think that Jeremy, I and at least a couple others on this forum have the professional and academic backgrounds to hold our own in front of a whiteboard with any architect that you could suggest on this particular topic. 

[Tennentslager]

This topic has been around for a while and I think weighted *naturally* by you guys that are clever and experienced self builders.

Sensus is well able to stand his own ground and has a fairly *back at you* style.

I'm looking forward to a rich feisty dialogue but please guys keep it measured, we all know what we know.

In my line of work *learning disability* we have a saying.

All of us are whole but none of us are perfect.???

Edited December 28, 2016 by Tennentslager

[SteamyTea]

On 28/12/2016 at 09:02, Sensus said:

You seem to have a very narrow and flawed understanding of what is involved in the training to become a Chartered Architect. We don't spend seven years just drawing pretty pictures and visiting cathedrals, you know!

No, you also learn how to defend your mistakes, while charging the customer for the privilege. 

 

As for BSc's not taking thermal and physical science, with respect to buildings, into account.  My Renewable Energy BSc did.  Was a major part of it during the final year.

 

I would think that most Architects could not quote the second law of thermodynamics, let alone the first one.