AIArchitect

In Doug Gordon's post of 3 Jan, on Leader or Facilitator, none of the 6 professionals considered for leadership in design of healthcare facilities are composers. One possible exception is the AICP, if an Architect.

It is the composer who should lead by facilitating the mission of the client. In healthcare that is patient's cures. One facilitates by listening, then composing the facility to effect a cure as if the building were a prosthetic. It is indeed a tertiary skin and should dialogue with sensate humans to enhance their systems' HSW.

The rest is up to those who exercise leadership in their specialties.

Consultants add expertise and are valued members of the team and owners construction manager, or integrator/facilitator are essential subordinants in serving the transformation of the vision to form.

It has always been done by teams at work to bring a vision to form. Since ancient times the Architect as Master Builder can manifest as individual or team identity.

Architects design architecture not just buildings. There are qualities to it that can not be named or measured by accountants. The Architect defines and then protects the clients design intent. It is both art and science. The architect protects the harmonius and unified gestaldt we call architecture. No other is qualified to do this. It is the vision as well as the process of design, documentation and construction, and all other phases of architectural service that is the central role of the architect and that role does embody the most value to the client.

The essential mission is to protect both the art, and the tectonics embodied by the design. That is what architects do.

There is nothing to be done without the vision clearly and accurately articulated by the architect. It often takes teamwork to do that including construction managers, integrators/ facilitators, field engineers, etc. With that in hand contractors can build. That is what contractors do.

This idea that the architect and the vision created should be subordinated to others due to their experience in cost estimating, contracting, and managing sub-contractors, by it's nature, is a compromise with those least invested in the architecture and the most invested in the business dimension of constructing buildings. It may be prudent business but it is often shortchanging the architecture in the interest of measurable values alone.

In the aggregate the potential of our cities has been shortchanged by such reasoning more than we should tollerate.

Quoted from the “Master Builder, R.I.P.”, by Michael Tardif, Assoc. AIA:

“Brunelleschi constantly struggled to persuade his client of the merits of his design and to compel workers to build the dome in conformance with his design intent. The project teetered on the brink of disaster many times. He had a tempestuous relationship with his client and was relieved of his responsibilities on more than one occasion. Although his skills as both an architect and an engineer were formidable, these—and the project itself—were nearly undermined by his ego and abrasive personality”

While the above statements accurately portray our understanding of the events surrounding the design and building of the dome, they represent a spin of sorts. Brunelleschi used persuasion, yes, but we should understand that the large dome was wanted before Brunelleschi came on the scene. Brunelleschi was not the original designer of the complex. He brought, foremost to the issue at hand, the solution to build the dome without scaffolding from the floor, the cost of which up to that time prohibited the construction of the dome. The fact that a project using construction technology never used previously would teeter at all, ought not be attributed to Brunelleschi’s ego, but rather, par for the course of engaging in such a pioneering construction activity. Team work and persistence was necessary to complete what others had set their mind to do. I prefer to spin the history that the teamwork was lacking, but Brunelleschi, thankfully brought the persistence.

One’s perspective on this project, in particular, has a lot to offer in our consideration of modern complex projects being designed through collaboration. Collaboration is not, in my opinion, a consensus. Although second opinions and even third opinions are sometimes necessary, collaboration is essentially the proper professionals supplying information to the building model that each is best equipped to supply. It is not a consensus finding of the collaborating group. Consensus results in committee designed buildings, from which we desperately need protection. Collaboration can be a pointed business pitting opinions against opposing positions. I hope architects are up to the daunting task of taking their seat firmly at the collaboration table to contribute what architects have to contribute.

As facilities become more and more complex, and as the demand for the latest in technology increases, building owners/managers look for guidance and expertise from many sources, including those from the design and/or construction industry. While an Architectural firm is the logical entity to fill this need to provide integration of the many various disciplines, all too often the role is being filled by a "Construction Manager," or "Project Coordinator," or some other entity who, unfortunately is only vaguely aware of the design process. But, due to their experience in cost estimating, contracting, and managing sub-contractors, many owners move in this direction, not understanding the vital nature of pre-construction activities, including design. And, unfortunately an owner may have endured an experience with an Archtitect who either didn't comply with budgetary constraints on the project, or who provided an unrealistic cost estimate during design. If our profession is take the lead in project management, it is encumbant that we improve this aspect of our service.

Over my 40 plus year in the profession I have maintained the following rules which I continue to share with younger architects today...."everyday is a learning experience to add to your fount of knowledge and skills"...while in school I was frustrated by the intrusion of course that were not "design" central...I recieved heavy doses of the mech/structural (10 semesters) classes...After I got a "real" job boy did they come in handy, I was able to communicate with my enginering consultants understand their solutions and space requirments to include in the final design plus I could challenge their solutions and discuss options because of those courses...With each project I accumulated more insight into my supporting enginering consultants needs...thus allowing me to develope into the old school "master architect"... I totally agree (with this daily learning..including professional reading)that the Architect of today can and should be the leader and the shaper of the owners physical and maybe operationl (a freshlook at how to work in the new space)needs. At the early mid point in my carrer I was able to account for structural concept and mep needs to soundly prepare a preliminary design for the client that was more often accepted and followed thru without consuming consultants time...Thank you DVB