Architectural Project Manager

Have you ever presented a blueprint to a client who absolutely hated it?

Asked by inode about 12 years ago

Not often but occasionally we miss the mark. The great thing about the design profession is that you always give something your best shot and present it to the client and if they don't like we find out why and - as the old saying goes - go back to the drawing board (but these days that's sketches on paper and a computer). One reason we've been pretty successful at delivering satisfactory products to our clients is because our firm doesn't really come with a prescribed design aesthetic. We both have our personal preference but we strive to design to our clients' wants and needs.

Were there any structural deficiencies in the Twin Towers that, if avoided, could've kept them from falling? Or did the size and placement of the impact make the collapses unavoidable no matter what?

Asked by Anon about 12 years ago

I had a feeling this question might come up. I've read several of the reports about the collapses and while there are many aspects that seem puzzling I think overall the collapse was probably unavoidable due to the place of the impact, the amount of the fuel that was dispensed and the failure of some of the fire suppression systems to contain the blaze. Having said that I'm not a structural engineer so I'm really speaking outside my normal purview.

Do architects get paid upon completion of the design, or completion of the building?

Asked by Killa Cal about 12 years ago

Sometimes both. If they are engaged for Construction Administration services they will be paid during the construction process as well.

I don't know if it's an issue in Austin, but what does it mean when a building is "earthquake-proof"? What makes it particularly resistant?

Asked by damian.yi about 12 years ago

Usually in Austin the only natural disaster-related design consideration we are concerned with is wind load (mostly from tornadoes). Also, I must say that design considerations for earthquakes is on the periphery of my knowledge so I may get some of this wrong. Earthquake-proof can mean several things but generally it means a building is designed in such a way so that it can withstand an earthquake of a particular magnitude (depending on region). Usually that means that the building should be able to flex and move somewhat fluidly without collapse. As one could imagine a building made completely of stone (like they did in say Roman times) would not be particularly earthquake-proof because stone is only stable in one direction - compression. You also don't want a building's structure to be too rigid (as some steel structures can be) because sometimes that will cause the cladding and fenestration systems to fail and that can injure people as well. Another consideration is the foundation itself. Depending on the soils condition and building type you may want to use a flat slab so that the building moves and "floats" on the surface during an earthquake. There are also cases where it's favorable to dig down to seismically stable bedrock and build your foundation from there.

Are there any famous architects you think are totally overrated?

Asked by Jammers about 12 years ago

I personally think Frank Gehry's brand of architecture is way overblown. I think when he first started honing his craft it was exciting and interesting but I think he settled into a niche/comfort zone and it devalued what used to be interesting architecture. In my opinion architecture that is mostly sculpture should be a 1-off kind of thing. If I were a client and and hiring a world-famous architect to design a building for me (and paying their sky-high fees) I would not any other buildings to look like it. Just my personal opinion.

Was there any one particular building that blew your mind to the point that you said, "That's it, I'm going into architecture."

Asked by Masey Mase about 12 years ago

First, what people are able to do with the built environment always amazes and intrigues me. Seeing how far other architects and designers can push the envelope is one of the things that keeps me motivated. But as far as when I decided I wanted to go into architecture I would have to say fourth grade. My father is also an architect and he agreed to do a presentation at career day. All the kids in the class were transfixed by his drawings and had more questions for him than any other kid's parent. I knew that if what my dad did for a living was that interesting as a fourth grader it would have to be great as an adult. Of course, this is before I learned how much an architect makes (heh). My dad was the most popular presenter of the week until Jack Del Rio (then with the Dallas Cowboys) came and presented what he did for a living. Even after that I still wanted to be an architect.

If a structure were to collapse or somehow fall apart due to a design defect, is the architect liable in any way?

Asked by Imagine_50 about 12 years ago

If it were determined that a structure failed or did not perform as expected (say, a roof leak) due to a design defect then yes, the architect can be held liable for some or all of the damage. It just really depends on the situation.

I'm about to be a sophomore in college, but my school doesn't have an architecture program so I'm taking engineering. Should I try to transfer to a school with an architecture major, or can I do it as a graduate degree and still get into the field?

Asked by clarke about 12 years ago

Well, I don't know about the licensing requirements in your state but in Texas you have to either get a 5-year BA in Architecture or a BA in something else and Masters (can't remember if it's a 2-year or 3-year Masters). About the only real advantage to having a Masters is if you ever want to teach. Personally, the extra cost and time versus the salary don't seem worth it to me. My hunch would be to get a BA in Architecture or maybe a dual degree in Engineering and Architecture. But I would certainly check what your state requires to get licensed.

Do you get hired by the client directly, or by a general contractor?

Asked by asus_aus about 12 years ago

A lot of the work we does comes from word of mouth. The great thing about that though is that we usually get referrals from all types of people we work with - clients, contractors, engineers and occasionally even other architects. If we are working directly for a client it's often in the form of the (traditional) design-bid-build format but we've also done many design-build projects where we work with a contractor throughout the project to get periodic cost analyses to make sure the project stays on budget. In those cases we are sometimes hired by the client and sometimes by the contractor.

Is the architect's job to design something attractive, or to design something sturdy?

Asked by Brit about 12 years ago

At the heart of it architects are responsible for the health, safety and welfare of the users of our buildings. That means things like the air inside is safe to breath or that it is easy to exit in case of a fire or even little things like it's easy to find your way through a building. While most architects love the design aspect the most their main concern is making sure the buildings are safe and inviting place to visit.

Is an architect's only responsibility to design the plan for a building, or is he also involved in the actual execution/construction of that plan?

Asked by McFly about 12 years ago

Great question. I don't think many people out there actually understand what an architect does. In the traditional design-bid-build role an architect's job can be broken down into the following phases (these can be very involved so I'll try to keep it as short as possible) - Pre-Design Services, Basic Architectural Services and Post-Construction Services: Pre-Design Services - Some of the pre-design services architects can be engaged to perform involve information gathering (surveys, existing drawings, deeds/restrictions, geotechnical data, etc), research applicable codes, if it's an existing building they an measure it and draw as-built drawings, write a Program (which delineates things like room sizes, adjacencies and other parameters in words before anything is drawn or designed), Master Planning and a myriad other services. Basic Architectural Services are broken down into 5 traditional phases: Phase 1 - Schematic Design - Tasks include creating design sketches for client review, putting together outline specifications and creating 3D massing models of the project for extra visualizations. Phase 2 - Design Development - Once the client has settled on a design the architecture team will start to put the basic structure if the design drawings together, will being cutting sections and drawing elevations start adding detail to the 3D model. Phase 3 - Construction Documents - Here the architect creates all the drawing necessary for permitting, bidding and construction. Phase 4 - Bid/Negotiations Phase - Here the architect helps the client solicit bids for construction, helps the client compare bids and offers and supplemental instructions or drawings. Once the client has chosen a contractor the architect then helps the client negotiate the contract with that contractor. Phase 5 - Construction Administration - Here the architect makes periodic site visits to make sure the contractor is building the project according to the plans. Other duties include issuing clarifications or changes to the drawings. The architect will also review applications for payment. The goal here is to make sure the project is being built according to the plans and specs and to make sure you haven't paid out more than you have value on site (either in built product or materials). Post-Construction Services: These can include things like creating as-built drawings (so that you have a set that reflects all changes that happened during construction), collecting and cataloging manuals and warranties for equipment purchased and do an 11-month walk-through to address any warranty items that may expire after a year. Again, this is a very abbreviated list of the Architect's duties - I left a lot out.

How does a structure like the following *not* topple over? http://bit.ly/bZvMmL

Asked by JSB about 12 years ago

The section shown in that image gallery give a lot of evidence. Basically that cantilevered portion of the house is acting like a giant beam. It's hard to tell exactly how it's supported from the small drawings, though. Sorry I can't be clearer.

Is the end goal to become an architect yourself? Is that what the owners are grooming you for?

Asked by ben3000 about 12 years ago

My ultimate goal is to run a firm myself, yes. The owner here is in the later part of his career and so my hope is to become knowledgeable enough and to build a good enough client base that when he retires I can take over duties myself (along with other employees, ideally).

Complete the following: an architect is __% artist and __% engineer.

Asked by Zach about 12 years ago

Hmm, interesting... I would go with 50/50.

Re: large/tall buildings. How does an architect approach a project in a more earthquake-prone area differently than one in a safer area? What are the primary structural differences? Put another way, how do tall buildings even exist in California?

Asked by Go Bolts! about 12 years ago

As I alluded to in my prior post about earthquake-proofing buildings this isn't really an area of expertise for me. We don't get much seismic activity in Texas.

If you quote a client a dollar-figure but find that you're running way over budget, are you contractually bound to do the work anyway, even at a loss?

Asked by essex about 12 years ago

Usually we try to work into our proposals a little bit of wiggle room in case there are unforeseen changes or items that could not be anticipated. We strive to stand by any fixed-fee quote we give unless the client has initiated changes above and beyond the normal scope of the design process. In those cases we inform the client of additional services and get their approval for fee increases before proceeding with the work.

Will the Leaning Tower of Pisa ever fall? Do architects of today look at it as a thing of beauty, or a glaring example of poor design and construction?

Asked by J3r3my about 12 years ago

My understanding is that it has been stabilized where it *should* not fall down. However I believe that people are no longer allowed to go in it. I think it's a great building and an interesting lesson in engineering.

When you draw up plans for a house, how long should it last before developing structural problems? Like, if it started showing stress faults after 100 years, would that be the architect's fault, or...do houses just get old and fall apart?

Asked by goldieRR about 12 years ago

It really just depends on the house was built. Unfortunately since most houses in the US are built with wood they generally do have an expected life span. Of course, if built well and maintained a wood frame house can last virtually forever.

Will architects be needed in the future? Aren't we moving toward an era where we'll be able to do model everything digitally?

Asked by JOE almost 12 years ago

I'm a junior in high school and I don't know what I want to major in. I like to meet new people and travel. I am good at managing and designing. I want a job where I can manage a design team and a job that pays well. What would you suggest?

Asked by Nitroen about 10 years ago