Why do owners need Architectural services?
ConnArch Inc
"Architects just draw plans" -- No matter how many times it is mentioned
that Architects are professionals who take on an Architectural project from
start to finish, from conception to completion, the majority of building
owners in the public realm still think that "Architects just draw plans" and
that they are an "unaffordable luxury".
Some Architects describe the professional role as that of an agent between
the owner and contractor acting on behalf of the owner. Others compare the
professional role to those other professions. Would a person go to court
without a lawyer? Would an individual seek medical advise without a
physician?
What other methods should Architects use to properly describe the importance
of Architectural services to owners in order to preserve, enhance, and
continue the worlds' "second" oldest profession?
Pierre Levesque, RA
Principal, connections architectural
President, ConnArch Inc
--
-----------------------------------------------------
connections architectural
a division of ConnArch Inc
329 East 10th Street, Suite 6
New York, NY 10009
tel. 212-982-5619 fax1. 212-673-6331
toll free t. 1-888-392-4832 ext. 212-982-5619
toll free f. 1-888-392-4832 ext. 212-673-6331
www.connarch.com
-----------------------------------------------------
Daniel Everhart
architects.
compare the picture on the back of 12 million cereal boxes to those in a
museum.
> Why do owners need Architectural services?
>
> "Architects just draw plans" -- No matter how many times it is mentioned
> that Architects are professionals who take on an Architectural project
from
> start to finish, from conception to completion, the majority of building
> owners in the public realm still think that "Architects just draw plans"
and
> that they are an "unaffordable luxury".
>
> Some Architects describe the professional role as that of an agent between
> the owner and contractor acting on behalf of the owner. Others compare the
> professional role to those other professions. Would a person go to court
> without a lawyer? Would an individual seek medical advise without a
> physician?
>
> What other methods should Architects use to properly describe the
importance
> of Architectural services to owners in order to preserve, enhance, and
> continue the worlds' "second" oldest profession?
>
>
our landscapes are plagued with cereal boxes.
Paul Fritz
ConnArch Inc wrote:
> Why do owners need Architectural services?
>
> "Architects just draw plans" -- No matter how many times it is mentioned
> that Architects are professionals who take on an Architectural project from
> start to finish, from conception to completion, the majority of building
> owners in the public realm still think that "Architects just draw plans" and
> that they are an "unaffordable luxury".
>
> Some Architects describe the professional role as that of an agent between
> the owner and contractor acting on behalf of the owner. Others compare the
> professional role to those other professions. Would a person go to court
> without a lawyer? Would an individual seek medical advise without a
> physician?
>
> What other methods should Architects use to properly describe the importance
> of Architectural services to owners in order to preserve, enhance, and
> continue the worlds' "second" oldest profession?
We run into a lot of this with the "design/build" firms.....We emphasize the
fact that the
architect represents and protect the owner from the contractor, and the other
administrative
services, i.e site plan approval, zoning etc......nut it is really getting nasty
out there.
Our last bid job.....thankfully we don't do many, we spent a great deal of time
just defending
ourselves from the constant slander of the contractor. (huge contractor - tiny
archtiectural office)
I guess they thought that they could throw there weight around and bury us, but
each time we came
out on top, its just been hundred of hours of going back through the drawings
and specs. Finally the
owner has realized the true value of our services :-)
ConnArch Inc
> architects.
>
> compare the picture on the back of 12 million cereal boxes to those in a
> museum.
Excellent additions to the comparisons "Would a person go to court without a
lawyer? Would an individual seek medical advise without a physician?"
I'd love to see more of these.
Maybe we can put our Architectural minds together and come up with more.
WHY OWNERS NEED ARCHITECTURAL SERVICES
--------------------------------------------------------------
- Would a person go to court without a lawyer? (anonymous)
- Would an individual seek medical advise without a physician? (anonymous)
- Analyze buildings built without architects, next to those designed by
architects. (Daniel Everhart)
- Compare the picture on the back of 12 million cereal boxes to those in a
museum. (Daniel Everhart)
(Add your reason here... try to keep it short and sweet)
If the list gets good, I'll try to add it to one of my book projects before
they go out to publication....
PL
--
-----------------------------------------------------
connections architectural
a division of ConnArch Inc
329 East 10th Street, Suite 6
New York, NY 10009
tel. 212-982-5619 fax1. 212-673-6331
toll free t. 1-888-392-4832 ext. 212-982-5619
toll free f. 1-888-392-4832 ext. 212-673-6331
www.connarch.com
-----------------------------------------------------
"Daniel Everhart" <dje...@earthlink.net> wrote in message
news:A12A4.4359$kv6.1...@newsread1.prod.itd.earthlink.net...
> analyze buildings built without architects, next to those designed by
> architects.
>
> compare the picture on the back of 12 million cereal boxes to those in a
> museum.
>
> > Why do owners need Architectural services?
> >
> > "Architects just draw plans" -- No matter how many times it is mentioned
> > that Architects are professionals who take on an Architectural project
> from
> > start to finish, from conception to completion, the majority of building
> > owners in the public realm still think that "Architects just draw plans"
> and
> > that they are an "unaffordable luxury".
> >
> > Some Architects describe the professional role as that of an agent
between
> > the owner and contractor acting on behalf of the owner. Others compare
the
> > professional role to those other professions. Would a person go to court
> > without a lawyer? Would an individual seek medical advise without a
> > physician?
> >
> > What other methods should Architects use to properly describe the
> importance
> > of Architectural services to owners in order to preserve, enhance, and
> > continue the worlds' "second" oldest profession?
> >
> >
>
>
nt
An architect is also a trained problem-solver who is best suited to adapt
spatial and material solutions to any given context. His/her experience and
insight is often essential when building in difficult urban conditions.
An architect is an experienced space-planner: an essential skill in
accommodating any complex program, especially in public buildings, where
security and efficiency are important factors in building design.
He/she is also trained to work with aesthetic and compositional issues.
Other professionals in the construction industry do not share this
(mistakenly) under-rated responsibility.
Paul Fritz <paul...@voyager.net> wrote in message
news:38d0cb8a$0$19...@news.voyager.net...
>
>
> ConnArch Inc wrote:
>
> > Why do owners need Architectural services?
> >
> > "Architects just draw plans" -- No matter how many times it is mentioned
> > that Architects are professionals who take on an Architectural project
from
> > start to finish, from conception to completion, the majority of building
> > owners in the public realm still think that "Architects just draw plans"
and
> > that they are an "unaffordable luxury".
> >
> > Some Architects describe the professional role as that of an agent
between
> > the owner and contractor acting on behalf of the owner. Others compare
the
> > professional role to those other professions. Would a person go to court
> > without a lawyer? Would an individual seek medical advise without a
> > physician?
> >
> > What other methods should Architects use to properly describe the
importance
> > of Architectural services to owners in order to preserve, enhance, and
> > continue the worlds' "second" oldest profession?
>
ConnArch Inc
--------------------------------------------------------------
- Would a person go to court without a lawyer? (anonymous)
- Would an individual seek medical advise without a physician? (anonymous)
- Analyze buildings built without architects, next to those designed by
architects. (Daniel Everhart)
- Compare the picture on the back of 12 million cereal boxes to those in a
museum. (Daniel Everhart)
- An architect is also a trained problem-solver who is best suited to adapt
spatial and material solutions to any given context. His/her experience and
insight is often essential when building in difficult urban conditions.
- An architect is an experienced space-planner: an essential skill in
accommodating any complex program, especially in public buildings, where
security and efficiency are important factors in building design.
- The Architect is trained to work with aesthetic and compositional issues.
Other professionals in the construction industry do not share this
(mistakenly)
under-rated responsibility. (est...@total.net)
(Add your reasons here)
Keep it going folks... this is going to be good.
PL
--
-----------------------------------------------------
connections architectural
a division of ConnArch Inc
329 East 10th Street, Suite 6
New York, NY 10009
tel. 212-982-5619 fax1. 212-673-6331
toll free t. 1-888-392-4832 ext. 212-982-5619
toll free f. 1-888-392-4832 ext. 212-673-6331
www.connarch.com
-----------------------------------------------------
"ConnArch Inc" <plev...@connarch.com> wrote in message
news:G1Nz4.190$t%4.9222@breeze...
> Why do owners need Architectural services?
>
> "Architects just draw plans" -- No matter how many times it is mentioned
> that Architects are professionals who take on an Architectural project
from
> start to finish, from conception to completion, the majority of building
> owners in the public realm still think that "Architects just draw plans"
and
> that they are an "unaffordable luxury".
>
> Some Architects describe the professional role as that of an agent between
> the owner and contractor acting on behalf of the owner. Others compare the
> professional role to those other professions. Would a person go to court
> without a lawyer? Would an individual seek medical advise without a
> physician?
>
> What other methods should Architects use to properly describe the
importance
> of Architectural services to owners in order to preserve, enhance, and
> continue the worlds' "second" oldest profession?
>
> Pierre Levesque, RA
> Principal, connections architectural
> President, ConnArch Inc
TW
An architect is the only professional TRAINED in multiple
disciplines so that no one discipline's preferences can
dominate the design or attention of the builder.
Architects' resolve into cohesive solutions the many
conflicting needs of space planning, site planning,
aesthetics, structure, HVAC equipment, utility services,
lighting, health issues, material durability. A
steelworker might build a room around a column, but an
architect would build columns around the room. An HVAC
engineer might build a round house for efficiency, but the
architect would (usually) plan a rectilinear structural
system which is efficient to construct.
Paul Fritz
> Other factors:
>
> An architect is also a trained problem-solver who is best suited to adapt
> spatial and material solutions to any given context. His/her experience and
> insight is often essential when building in difficult urban conditions.
>
> An architect is an experienced space-planner: an essential skill in
> accommodating any complex program, especially in public buildings, where
> security and efficiency are important factors in building design.
>
> He/she is also trained to work with aesthetic and compositional issues.
> Other professionals in the construction industry do not share this
> (mistakenly) under-rated responsibility.from
The problem is that "design/build" companies have architects on staff and offer
"free" design services
It's getting the prospect client to realize a) the services are not really free,
b) those people will act in the best interest of the contractor not the owner,
and c) you get what you pay for :-)
jsnare
TW
Gardening.
Don E. Anderson, Jr.
cost. My wife and I are just beginning a home project here in north
Georgia. We looked at stock plans for many months until we realized that
there was nothing available "over the counter". We had always thought that
a project had to run to around $500,000 or so before an architect would be
interested. It wasn't until we had gotten totally frustrated with the stock
plans that we began a search for an architect to take on our little (modest)
home and then we found that indeed there were any number of architects in
the Atlanta area that were very interested.
I'm not sure how you would go about changing this perception. I believe it
is very common...
Just my two-cents from a client...
Don
ConnArch Inc <plev...@connarch.com> wrote in message
news:G1Nz4.190$t%4.9222@breeze...
> Why do owners need Architectural services?
>
> "Architects just draw plans" -- No matter how many times it is mentioned
> that Architects are professionals who take on an Architectural project
from
> start to finish, from conception to completion, the majority of building
> owners in the public realm still think that "Architects just draw plans"
and
> that they are an "unaffordable luxury".
>
> Some Architects describe the professional role as that of an agent between
> the owner and contractor acting on behalf of the owner. Others compare the
> professional role to those other professions. Would a person go to court
> without a lawyer? Would an individual seek medical advise without a
> physician?
>
Adam Weiss
ConnArch Inc wrote:
>
> Why do owners need Architectural services?
>
> "Architects just draw plans" -- No matter how many times it is mentioned
> that Architects are professionals who take on an Architectural project from
> start to finish, from conception to completion, the majority of building
> owners in the public realm still think that "Architects just draw plans" and
> that they are an "unaffordable luxury".
>
> Some Architects describe the professional role as that of an agent between
> the owner and contractor acting on behalf of the owner. Others compare the
> professional role to those other professions. Would a person go to court
> without a lawyer? Would an individual seek medical advise without a
> physician?
>
> What other methods should Architects use to properly describe the importance
> of Architectural services to owners in order to preserve, enhance, and
> continue the worlds' "second" oldest profession?
>
> Pierre Levesque, RA
> Principal, connections architectural
> President, ConnArch Inc
> --
> -----------------------------------------------------
Aren't we really asking "why do clients hire architectural firms to
design their buildings"?
I'm a student, so I could be (probably am) wrong, but big clients often
have their own in house architects, often liscensed ones, right? They
DO hire architects because they know they need them (to help figure out
who to hire to design a building, to handle the design of an office in
their building or on their campus, etc.). But why do they hire FIRMS?
--
Adam Weiss
w...@whazo.com
--
People in stone houses shouldn't throw glass.
--
Paul Fritz
> Perhaps one of the misconceptions the profession needs to address is the
> cost. My wife and I are just beginning a home project here in north
> Georgia. We looked at stock plans for many months until we realized that
> there was nothing available "over the counter". We had always thought that
> a project had to run to around $500,000 or so before an architect would be
> interested. It wasn't until we had gotten totally frustrated with the stock
> plans that we began a search for an architect to take on our little (modest)
> home and then we found that indeed there were any number of architects in
> the Atlanta area that were very interested.
Probably mostly starving TECH grads....:-)
PMDavis
architectural firms to do their design, rather than using in-house design
staff?"
If so, there are many reasons.
1. A local firm might have connections, relationships and work history with
local planning officials, contractors, and other political movers.
2. "Outsourcing" transfers liability for errors and ommissions to a third
party, reducing risk.
3. Using an outside source might offer specialized expertise, style or
technique that isn't available in-house.
4. If capital improvements funding fluctuates wildly, it's better to hire
on an as-needed basis rather than having to manage staffing layoffs and
rehiring (which is bad for a company's reputation, by the way.)
5. There is more flexibility in scheduling and cost control.
6. Sometimes an small outside firm is less costly and faster, because one
can sidestep the corporate bureaucracy and internal politics. Employee
morale can also be higher in a small intimate office. For example, General
Electric bought an established environmental engineering firm that had
previously done much of their work (Thinking of all the money they were
going to save. Within a year all the technical staff left, and the division
folded. It seems the guys that went into environmental work because they
liked to spend their days wading through swamps or drilling holes in the
dirt didn't see themself as a part of the corporate structure of a fortune
500 company, even though the pay was significantly higher.
7. A small local firm might be more familiar with local building methods.
Adam Weiss wrote in message
<00EC7CB214ABBC46.80FD34DB...@lp.airnews.net>...
Don E. Anderson, Jr.
:-)
Paul Fritz <paul...@voyager.net> wrote in message
news:38d1545e$0$19...@news.voyager.net...
nt
professionals. It is not to their advantage to be stamping construction
drawings when they are on a corporation's payroll, which can amount to a
conflict of interest!
Usually, a «house» architect in corporations and public services has the
mandate to act as a link between the corporation and independent
architectural firms who offer their services on contract. His/her
responsibilities include the preparation of documents that summarize the
corporation's needs and objectives, as well as the elaboration of a
preliminary program. An in-house architect also acts as a competent voice
for negotiating with the architect, engineer and contractor during the
construction phase. He/she is not, however, required to be licensed for this
work.
Eckie
> It wasn't until we had gotten totally frustrated with the
> stock plans that we began a search for an architect to take on our little (modest) home and then we found that indeed there were any number of architects in the Atlanta area that were very interested. I'm not sure how you would go about changing this perception. I believe it is very common...
As an overanxious and eager student still jumping through hellacious
hoops for that license, I'd think that the budget restriction would
cause architects to be even more crafty than if they were given the
glitsy often dreamt-about unlimited budget for a public museum. Then
again, I still have no real world working knowledge of what really goes
on in the offices.
(But I can cut and glue chipboard and basswood with exacto knives like
it's second nature)
The almighty Frank Lloyd Wright even did commissions that were on
relatively modest budgets. If the sleep deprivation of architecture
school hasn't erased half my memory, the Rosenbaum House is one of 'em.
~ArchitEck
ec...@asu.edu
Paul Fritz
> Hmmm. I'll have to ask her. She didn't LOOK starving last time we met...
> :-)
>
I was one of those at one time. :-)
>
> Paul Fritz <paul...@voyager.net> wrote in message
> news:38d1545e$0$19...@news.voyager.net...
> > "Don E. Anderson, Jr." wrote:
> >
> > > Perhaps one of the misconceptions the profession needs to address is the
> > > cost. My wife and I are just beginning a home project here in north
> > > Georgia. We looked at stock plans for many months until we realized
> that
> > > there was nothing available "over the counter". We had always thought
> that
> > > a project had to run to around $500,000 or so before an architect would
> be
> > > interested. It wasn't until we had gotten totally frustrated with the
> stock
> > > plans that we began a search for an architect to take on our little
> (modest)
> > > home and then we found that indeed there were any number of architects
> in
> > > the Atlanta area that were very interested.
> >
> > Probably mostly starving TECH grads....:-)
> >
> > >
> > >
> > > I'm not sure how you would go about changing this perception. I believe
> it
> > > is very common...
> > >
Bryan Shisler
On the subject of Landscape design/build firms, I thought I'd pipe in on
the side of the design/build businesses out there and all you architects
can hear from our side of the story. We have had many, many clients
come through our doors with plans drawn up by licensed landscape
architects which either:
1. do not meet the needs/wants/desires of the customer.
2. do not work in 3-D reality because the plans are drawn from a false
miniaturized helicopter perspective which does not take into account the
visual and textural reality of working in three-dimensional real life .
3. make compromises in design due to engineering issues that the
architect was unable to solve because of a lack of a construction
background.
4. are just more of the same tired, old designs that were popular in
nice neighborhoods several decades ago but lack any real creativity or
freshness.
Now, most of the above could also be said about many of the design/build
firms out there due to basic lack of communication
skills/creativity/engineering skill/etc., so this is not a slam only of
architects. We do not charge our customers a seperate line item for
design services, but we make it clear to them that our prices (which are
all listed for them so there are no suprises) do reflect the way we work
with them every step of the way, listening to them closely (typical
consultation sessions can last four hours or more) and then coming up
with unique, personalized designs that reflect what they are truly
looking for. Often times, customers have very little idea what they
want, and it takes an investment of time and energy to bring it out of
them. Other times, they have ideas about what they want but hold them
for what we call the wrong reasons (such as bad experiences with past
contractors or the simple fact that they don't know the full universe of
what is available to them).
We *can* do plans, and it does make us money, hovever we tell our
customers that we can still do a wonderful design, partially by using
their actual property as the canvas, and save the $1500-$2500 (or more)
that we charge for CAD-based plans and use it in the budget for nicer,
larger trees, more plants, or better hardscape materials.
Just a perspective from the other side of this debate! No flames
intended as I am sure you are all competent professionals who work to
serve your customers to the best of your abilities.
Best Regards,
Bryan B. Shisler
CEO & President
Allied Property Services
http://www.apsallservices.com
Paul Fritz wrote:
>
> ConnArch Inc wrote:
>
> > Why do owners need Architectural services?
> >
> > "Architects just draw plans" -- No matter how many times it is mentioned
> > that Architects are professionals who take on an Architectural project from
> > start to finish, from conception to completion, the majority of building
> > owners in the public realm still think that "Architects just draw plans" and
> > that they are an "unaffordable luxury".
> >
> > Some Architects describe the professional role as that of an agent between
> > the owner and contractor acting on behalf of the owner. Others compare the
> > professional role to those other professions. Would a person go to court
> > without a lawyer? Would an individual seek medical advise without a
> > physician?
> >
> > What other methods should Architects use to properly describe the importance
> > of Architectural services to owners in order to preserve, enhance, and
> > continue the worlds' "second" oldest profession?
>
DOR
>
> WHY OWNERS NEED ARCHITECTURAL SERVICES
> --------------------------------------------------------------
So that someday they can be sellers.
DOR
Paul Fritz
represents/protects the owner....not as big a problem
with small contracts, but leaves the owner hanging inn larger ones. Having a separate
design professional allows for competive bidding anf
comparing apples to apples, not possible in the design build sector, most end users
are not knowledgable enough to disccern slight variables
in porduct that can have a signiifcant impact on the total cost/benefit of a buiding.
Robert Shearer
ARSNYM
functions and usefulness of design build firms. it would seem to me that
architects, designers, and contractors all have their own legitimate functions.
it also seems equally obvious that, as in all other areas of life, there will
be significant overlap in these areas, and, furthermore, that this is a good
thing. it is all too simplistic and self-serving to dichotomize the issue with
statements such as "architects make architecture. builders make buildings".
i am apalled and would have expected a higher level of dicussion than the
current us versus them one.
PMDavis
a legitimate place in the industry. Many are high quality businesses that
do excellant work. I began in design-build just after graduation from
college, and draw upon experiences that I learned there every day.. in plant
material selection, business knowledge, and so forth.
I have several projects (each over $100,000 construction cost) being
competently installed by design build firms even as we speak, and we have
what I believe to be a good and respectful working relationship developed
through good communication and several years of developed trust and personal
friendship.
However, speaking in generalities there is potential conflict of interest.
I've have design-build firms go to the owner behind my back, seeking to have
me displaced in order to lower the quality control protection of the owner.
I've had them attempt to change, and worse yet actually change (read
destroy) the design during construction, and to attempt taking cuts in plant
quality, design quality, fib about level of completion, and all sorts of
unethical practices in order to increase their profit margin at the expense
of the project. In other words, be they were unprofessional and
undependable. This is the sort of behavior that is addressed in that 5 year
college professional degree program.. and the sort of conduct that can get a
professional unlicensed, and even kicked out of a professional society.
In Book Six of "The Republic" Plato outlines the distinction between a
"business" and a "profession". This has been a foundational distinction in
western society for 2,300 years. In short, a business exists for the
purpose of generating a profit for the owner or stockholders. A profession
exists for the professional to be in service to a discrete discipline of
body of knowledge, in which he has specialized knowledge and training. The
owner goes to the professional for a totally unbiased and impartial opinion
based upon the state of knowledge in the profession. It's considered
unethical for a professional to have a financial stake in a project, just as
it's unethical for a doctor to take payments from a drug company for
prescribing it's drugs. The opinion of a true professional must be
unclouded by financial concerns... which, I believe from my own personal
experience, is functionally impossible in the design-build business model.
If someone wishes to use giving away design for free, or a nominal fee in
the hopes of making up a profit later.. more power to him. Some owners gain
by having a single source point of contact (particularly on a small, or
non-critical project). However, the design build company has to business
representing that sales technique as equivalent to a "professional" service.
A landscape architect can work with a design-build firm so long as there is
clear communication and designation of responsibility, and mutual trust and
respect.
ARSNYM wrote in message <20000327092513...@ng-fw1.aol.com>...
I'aV
Cecilia
PMDavis <pmdla...@earthlink.net> wrote in message
news:91MD4.5888$p_6.1...@newsread2.prod.itd.earthlink.net...
I'aV
Mad Dog
with several architecture groups and the posts originated from there. The
way I read them, it was an architect that originally made the disparaging
comment regarding design/build. As for landscape architects and
design/build, it was not until the last 15-20 years that a landscape
architect who owned a design/build firm could even get membership in ASLA.
The belief of the organization was that landscape architects should only be
consultants and not be involved in what they called speculative business
practices. There are still many around who hold that opinion, shortsighted
though it may be.
ARSNYM <ars...@aol.com> wrote in message
news:20000327092513...@ng-fw1.aol.com...
I'aV
Ideally Landscape Architects "should" be paid for creative design work. But
many economies, including Louisiana's, do not allow LA's to make a living
designing only. I understand the conflict of interest issue with an LA's
making money off of a service which is additional to the design work. And
if the LA represented certain products then specifying materials could be
questioned. But some LA's would say operating a design/build firm means
that the LA retains greater control over quality and built work.
All of this discussion relates to the identity problem Landscape Architects
and Landscape Architecture has. "Not a 'Landscaper' but a Landscape
Architect" for example.
C
Mad Dog <db6...@dragonbbs.com> wrote in message
news:se3v86f...@corp.supernews.com...
Mad Dog
much of the time spent in school is an effort to legitimize the profession
as being on par with architects, civil engineers, etc. Sometimes I get the
impression that everyone drawn to the profession has a severe inferiority
complex.
The issue of the conflict of interest is interesting. It is funny that ASLA
would not allow Thomas Church for example to be a member because he did
design/build, but gave him the ASLA medal for lifetime achievement or
something of the sort. Seems rather hypocritical, but then, what
professional organization doesn't have those problems once in awhile.
I agree with you concerning the LA's ability to maintain greater control
over their work when they are also responsible for building it. This also
stops contractors and the like from making unauthorized changes to the
design that have a detrimental effect on the final product. For example, I
have recently been studying the work of Dan Killed. In one of his projects
(Fountain Place in Dallas, Texas) there is a grid of pools with large round
planters placed on the grid. The planters contain Bald Cypress. The original
specifications called for the planters to be poured concrete. Instead of
following the design specifications the contractor used concrete modular
units with the result that the planters now have seams. The trees have done
remarkable well and are larger than they might have expected to be. The
roots are also pushing through the seams in the planters. A landscape
architect building the project might have been able to stop this from
happening. It is an interesting debate.
I'aV <sgc...@attglobal.net.nospam> wrote in message
news:38e3d...@news1.prserv.net...
PMDavis
landscape architect to enter the landscape construction field. There might
be some very good reasons to do so. In my opinion, every field of
employment is of equal respectability and validity, so long as work is beng
done
ethically and meets a social purpose. In fact, in some economies a
design-build company might be more responsive to social needs than would a
starving (elitist) design office.
I do think that it is important to how "the profession of landscape
architecture" is perceived by the public, that the designer should be clear
in their communications that they are acting as a "design-build contractor"
and not representing themself as a "professional landscape architect" when
they choose to do so. That's all. It's simply a matter of ethics to
communicate to a client the specific terms of the working arrangement. (If
they happen to care.) It also avoids complications for those of doing
classic style landscape architecture. I sometimes tire of having to explain
to people... "I am a landscape architect, and no, I don't dig holes."
I'aV wrote in message <38e3d...@news1.prserv.net>...
I'aV
Sometimes I get the impression that everyone drawn to the profession has a
severe inferiority complex.
New comment:
I agree with this. LA is my "second career" and I bring a wealth of life
experience and business savvy to my effort. I am astonished at the lack of
skills outside of LA most LA's whose original career choice was LA have.
In my graduate school LA class we have often made jokes about creating a
"How to recognize a Landscape Architect" guide. I have figured out some
generalizations over the years but my actual image is still vauge. And I
believe it is because most LA's don't know who they are.
I remember someone delivering a paper at a CELA conference in 1994 "How to
Sound Like a Landscape Architect." I could write that script. I have a
representation of that lexicon but still no clear image of a Landscape
Architect after meeting hundreds of Landscape Architects. I have a picture
in my mind's eye of a "design person." But not a Landscape Architect.
From time to time I think of the only Hollywood film image of a Landscape
Architect I know of, Jacqueline Bissett in "Bullitt." I have not reconciled
this representation with my reality except for LA's spend a lot of time at
drafting tables or nowadays CRTs inside studios.
Mad Dog <db6...@dragonbbs.com> wrote in message
news:se9b3m...@corp.supernews.com...
Adam Alexander
love to read it. I could probably contribute quite a bit, too.
Scott Stefanc
with the comment that we suffer an identity complex but not an inferiority
complex.
I think, and this is my own opinion, is that the field of Landscape
Architecture is fragmented and education and people of the profession
perpetuate this identity problem. When I define the field of Landscape
Architecture in conversation, it seems difficult for some people to
understand the concepts presented. Most people not associated with the
profession see Landscape Architects as people who just design residential
landscapes and gardens. I must go on to explain about those people who
specialize in natural resource management, historical preservation,
commercial & residential, etc... (and also discuss closely related
professions such as horticulture and forestry) and that it is the process of
working with the land and defining the relationship of people to the
environment be it natural or man-made.
In school, we start this fragmentation by beginning to focus on our intended
specialization (Golf Course Design for example). We then continue this
after school by retreating to our areas of expertise and rarely, if ever,
interact with others in the field. Sadly, I remember the last time I spoke
with someone from the DNR or Forestry Dept. and it has been too long. This
reflects on the original thread where there is a growing gap between those
in a Design/Build situation and others who work solely in the capacity of a
consultant (I have done both).
Architects do not have this problem. When a person says that she/he is an
Architect, there seems to be little question in the other person's mind
(supposition) as to what an Architect does. Again, this is a generalization
and is not as black and white in most circumstances. It does, I feel, give
credence to the identity crisis we face.
I don't believe it is an inferiority complex as previously stated. I feel
it is the inability for some in the profession to work with each other to
present a unified presence.
I may be wrong...
Scott Stefanc, ASLA
I'aV <sgc...@attglobal.net.nospam> wrote in message
news:38e86...@news1.prserv.net...
PMDavis
Landscape Architect". It had a picture of a guy, with call-outs to various
portions of his attire and so forth.
I remember that it made reference to "orthopedic shoes", "ink blots on the
shirt pocket from leaking marker", bags under the eyes from staying up all
night, Tweed jacket, etc. I think I still have it stored someplace around
here.
I'aV wrote in message <38e86...@news1.prserv.net>...
Adam Alexander
limited experience, though, it is deeper than that. We have all had people ask
about their sick tree when you tell them what it is you do, or in my case, are
being educated to do.
One of my former professors, he died earlier this year, tried to impress on his
students the need to get involved in the community as much as possible. The
primary reason being to educate people as to what it is landscape architects do.
Some have taken this advice and have successfully run for local office, are
involved in 4H programs, master gardener programs, etc. These are the few,
however. Most still just sit around lamenting the fact that no one understands
how important LA's are or what they do. I guess it is just easier to complain
than to do something about it.
The relatively small size of the profession and the wide variety of
specializations is a hindrance to a unified profession, but would you have it
any other way? The strength and weakness of the profession obviously lies in its
great diversity.
ARSNYM
installation without a landscape architect would be a net detriment to property
value.
i could be wrong.
ARSNYM
design and install projects. we bill separately for the design, which can be
installed by us or by some one else.
unfortunately, about one third of our projects have at least some aspect which
involves correcting the poor workmanship of a previous installation, whether
it be from when the home was first built, or a later project. that there is
such poor workmanship is something of a sweet/sour situation. it creates
opportunity for us, however we also have extra work to do to establish levels
of trust.
For the most part i am glad to partner with a landscape architect on a project,
or to work from a set of plans drawn by one.
On the other hand customers have handed us plans drawn by landscape architects
which completely miss the customers uses for the landscape, their needs, or
resources.
I absolutely agree there must be clear communication, division of
responsiblity, trust and respect amongst all parties. >
Scott Stefanc
a small group in the profession and variety of specializations. Yet neither
of those needs to be a problem. I do agree that we need to keep the variety
in the profession. I also feel that we need to communicate more between
these areas of specialization and with other "professions" (not only design
consultants but those who build or apply the techniques and experience we
profess of having). I also agree that we need to be more pro-active in
terms of the education of the public in regards to our profession.
Scott
Adam Alexander <alexan...@osu.edu> wrote in message
news:38E9E19E...@osu.edu...
PMDavis
the boat" entirely. I've seen it first hand, and perhaps I've done it
myself more than once (but how would I know?).
To be fair though, I've spent hours with a client discussing their needs,
gone back to the office to put a plan on paper, and then at the next meeting
discover that the owner has either changed their mind, or perhaps had
completely mistated what it was they were attempting to accomplish. I've
had that experience more with residential work than with commercial. There
seems to be something about having a housewife sitting around all day
thinking "what-if?".
There is much more to design than simply designing, such as discerning a
realistic assessment of what the client actually wants to do, and can do
(not always the same thing), selling the design to the client, and managing
the client through the entire process. I've had multi-million dollar
mansions with a hard set $5,000 landscape budget, and owners of 1/4 acre
tract houses with no idea that a budget should even be a consideration. In
my opinion the designer has a responsibility to assist the owner in
determining in advance what his actual requirments are, whether the owner
wants to cooperate in that process or not.
That sort of thing comes with experience (street smarts) and can't be taught
in a university.
ARSNYM wrote in message <20000404203548...@ng-fv1.aol.com>...
Bryan Shisler
I'aV
Cecilia
PMDavis <pmdla...@earthlink.net> wrote in message
news:iXJG4.6114$g35.1...@newsread1.prod.itd.earthlink.net...
I'aV
I "checked out" your site. I question a couple of your design choices but
the quality of your construction work does appear to be good. But it wasn't
necessary for you to put down someone else's work to have your own
recognized.
A Landscape Architect (someone educated in an accredited Landscape
Architecture program and licensed) specialize in many different areas of
practice. Some design golf courses, cemeteries, public parks, urban design,
hardscape and softscape, particular types of gardens, determine regional
planning, evaluate seascapes or other visual impacts, teach, create
computer software, direct arboretums or gardens, and approximately 80% work
for public or private agencies. And some Landscape Architects design
residential spaces.
As to whether or not a home owner should hire a Landscape Architect depends
on the person's budget and the project degree of complexity. Numerous other
"Green Industry" options exist to choose from, in all regions of the US, for
exterior residential design. Also available are a variety of experience,
work ethic, and technical expertise levels. Many home owners however, can
manage results they are quite happy with without any outside assistance.
Other persons have a vision they do not have the time or expertise to master
but do have the resources to employ someone to make it so. Additionally
hiring a professional can save one costly errors and headaches.
I suggest to anyone considering a home exterior design to "shop around," as
one would for anything. Ask colleagues, friends, and relatives to suggest a
designer they were happy with. Interview at least three designers and ask
to see examples of their built work. Call the Better Business Bureau and
inquire. Whether a person is looking for a particular style, quality of
workmanship or design, or economy the consumer needs to be informed and
communicate their needs and desires well to the consultant they deal with.
I agree with you Landscape Architects can lack in construction experience.
But I have seen some poor construction decisions made by Licensed Landscape
Contractors too. I have noticed definite differences between spaces
designed by Landscape Architects and those designed by Landscape
Contractors. Landscape Architects seem to use more regional design
solutions. This is simply my limited personal observation.
Landscape Architects operating in a Design/Build function will continue to
be a controversial issue in the field of Landscape Architecture. The
Landscape Architecture's professional identity will continue to puzzle both
those outside and people inside the "Green Industry" due to skills
overlapping between professions. I see the later the primary discussion
required to clarify the role of the Landscape Architect. Resolution of the
former is not crucial to retaining the Landscape Architect definition.
Just as Planning "broke off" from Landscape Architecture the impact of the
Design/Build professional may evolve further. But if the Landscape
Architect distinction is to survive the profession must resolve to define
itself in operation with other professions.
Cecilia
Bryan Shisler <Br...@apsallservices.com> wrote in message
news:38EC115B...@apsallservices.com...
Kirk Johnson
<sco...@watertechnologyinc.com> wrote:
I am the managing editor for the Design Arts section at Suite 101. I have
been looking for someone to write a column about Landscape Architecture.
This topic could be listed in both the Design Arts and the Gardening
sections at Suite 101.
A lot of my articles are about the history of garden design or about
seeing gardens as works of art. This is a part of the education of
Landscape Architects, but Landscape Architecture is a much broader subject
than garden design. About.com has a good topic on landscaping, but I
haven't come across anyone on the internet who is really trying to educate
the public about Landscape Architecture.
Suite 101 doesn't really pay for our articles, we just get paid for
internet access. I write two articles a month for which I get $20 a month;
I get an additional $10 a month for being a managing editor.
You won't get rich at Suite 101 but we are given a great deal of creative
freedom. We are paid so little that Suite 101's management trys very hard
to avoid upsetting the talent. One of the best things about Suite 101 is
that all of our old articles stay up so you can develop a large online
library of your articles.
It would be great if someone decides to write about Landscape Architecture
at Suite 101. I hope to hear from you.
ARSNYM
customers, particularly residential customers.
i am glad the discussion has taken a more objective turn.
I'aV
Cecilia
ARSNYM <ars...@aol.com> wrote in message
news:20000409170310...@ng-ce1.aol.com...