|
|
Abdicating Responsibility, part 5 |
|
|
|
As long as there are owners willing to pay for good architecture, there will be a need for good architects. But, if the trend toward design-build continues, many architects will find themselves essentially working for contractors. For many, this will create a conflict that will be hard to overcome. The architect's education typically is focused on providing what is best for the building owner and occupant, which is not necessarily the same as the person who is paying the architect. When a developer asks for a building that will last just long enough to turn it over to someone else, the architect must set aside concern for the occupant and deliver what the developer wants. In the same way, an architect who works for a design-build firm will find it necessary to do what that firm decides is best, rather than what is best for the occupants. If the architect is the stronger partner of a design-build firm, it would still be possible to design for the owner, but it appears that most design-build firms are led by contractors rather than architects. By providing less and less of total design - direct client interface, problem analysis, programming, evaluation of energy and operating costs, selection of products and systems that will predictably perform as required, complete coordination of construction documents, participation in contractor selection, frequent site visits, commissioning, and post-occupancy evaluation - architects have been gradually diminishing the essence of the profession. Wise owners may well recognize the potential conflicts and lack of checks and balances in design-build, and compensate by hiring independent estimators to make keep the project on budget, independent representatives to oversee the work, and commissioning agents to make sure the completed project is what was promised. The result of this shift of services away from architects is that they are becoming little more than glorified artists/CAD technicians, the difference being that claiming to practice architecture makes one legally responsible for the outcome of the project. What is the future for the profession of architecture?The interesting thing about many of the new services and delivery systems we have discussed is that, with the exception of design-build, they have little liability compared to that borne by architects. They are not licensed or regulated in the same way as architectural and engineering services, nor are they financially responsible in the same way as a prime contractor. To be fair, it must be said that those who offer these services to the owner are not out to do in the architects. They are merely filling voids left as architects have retreated from the responsibility for total design. Can architects dig in their heels and reclaim what they have lost? Or is it too late? Is it even possible for architects to regain the status of master builder? Given the continually increasing number of construction products and methods, can any one person or firm really understand all that goes into a building? As is usually the case, making no decision will let the issue resolve itself, and the way things are going, the result will not be a pleasant one for architects. If they are not going to try to reverse the trend, architects must at least begin to find ways to shift legal liability to those who are taking on more and more of the architect's traditional work. © 2002 Sheldon Wolfe, RA, FCSI, CCS, CCCA |
|
Web site design and content Copyright © 1995-2004 Sheldon Wolfe Material from CSI Chapter newsletters used with permission. |