|
View previous topic :: View next topic
|
| Author |
Message |
RWL
Joined: 10 May 2004
Posts: 399
|
|
| Back to top |
|
 |
mx2
millennium club
Joined: 18 Jan 2006
Posts: 1988
Location: Miami, Florida
|
 Posted: Fri Aug 04, 2006 3:40 pm Post subject: |
    |
|
| Quote: | | The other $4.5 million comes from Gehry’s professional liability insurance. The firm was not named as a defendant in the case, despite more than 10,000 requests-for-information (RFIs) during construction. |
No comment at all? Or you're just baiting someone like me to light the match?  Great article, thanks for posting...I would never have known otherwise. After reading it though I am reminded of the article posted in another thread that talk about construction quality in America. This is dead on right in line with the whole issue. 10 thousand RFI's??? I have gotten some very frivolous RFI's from contractors who have some agenda to push...and all hell breaks loose because then I usually will be much more meticulous when doing site visits and or shop dwg reviews, etal. In retrospect, like the article mentions...it's a good thing. It's time we step up the level of quality and quality costs. I think if the issue was really looked into that it is most probable the real culprit here was Disney if they followed the typical route in this scenario: unrealistic budget, unrealistic schedule, highly customized and elaborate project for a builder who's never been challenged at such a level before.
It's better known as "champagne taste on a beer budget". I can't assume Gehry's firm is at fault here, but I am willing to be wrong....
mx2
_________________
*Art of Architecture: The conscious use of skill and creative imagination in the production of an aesthetic building.
*Science of Architecture: The calculated use of technical skill and knowledge in the construction of a functional building. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
am_i_wry
Joined: 07 Jun 2006
Posts: 141
|
| Posted: Fri Aug 04, 2006 3:54 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Interesting. It just shows the pitfalls of this sort of thing. I was reading today that Zaha Hadid's transport museum project on glasgow is now in a degree of doubt as only one major contractor was willing to tender for it. The view seems to be that due to the nature of the architecture it was pretty much unpriceable and an excessive risk. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
mx2
millennium club
Joined: 18 Jan 2006
Posts: 1988
Location: Miami, Florida
|
| Posted: Fri Aug 04, 2006 4:06 pm Post subject: |
|
|
Probably has more to do with the potential for loss of profits by the builder who knows they have no inkling how to build something unprecedented. If it's not glass and steel extruded towers finished with synthetic tile and gypsum wallboard, most contractor's have no desire to build it...in a nutshell, because it's a pain in their a$$!! They know they will have major cost overruns and simply invent some astronomical cost to try and over the probable "unforseen incursions", which always comes back to the client as some insanely ridiculous number they were never rpepared to hear. So they balk...luckily there is competition out there and the smart ones simply go shopping....
We just went throught this with a small theatre of a budget of $4.5 million. Everyone knew the budget from day one...after submitting our construction documents, the contractor came back with a cost estimate of $7.5 million. We were asked to "value engineer" our design and the builder gave a new estimate of $6.5 million...AND blamed us, the architect for an elaborate design. Let me tell you guys...this was as plain vanilla as we could get. So we convinced the client to go to open bid... and the entire time the original builder griped that costs will go up due to inflation, etc and at first we received NO bids or any interests. Everyone was too busy...then they came in. Long story short, new contractor signed on the line last week for a whopping budget of $5.5 million. We saved the client a cool million....
Wish I could get a piece of that... 
Anyway my point is that Architects are stepping up the game and the building industry is lagging. Architects in this country need to keep pushing...but gently.
mx2
_________________
*Art of Architecture: The conscious use of skill and creative imagination in the production of an aesthetic building.
*Science of Architecture: The calculated use of technical skill and knowledge in the construction of a functional building. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
solidred
Joined: 05 Jan 2006
Posts: 771
Location: Scotland
|
| Posted: Fri Aug 04, 2006 4:13 pm Post subject: |
|
|
I was talking with a colleague about this kind of issue this afternoon and thinking about it afterwards:
That litigation is part of today's particular scenery isn't news. What I'm wary of isn't litigation based upon people trying legal means to get some compensation from a messy contract history. If an architect, say, has really messed up then it's fair that the party who's had to bear the brunt of the consequences should take it to the necessary level. However, what I'm becoming wary of is something else: that of Contractors (or Clients) with the commercial clout to spend money on court cases almost speculatively where there might be almost a loophole or technicalities whereby they can get access to Indemnity payout. This kind of fear leads the likes of architects (like doctors) not to concentrate on doing the best job they can (because that's not at issue) but to concentrate on covering their backs and limiting their 'exposure to risk'.
In short, an abuse of the legal system leads to a more limited service. It also increases costs: take a specification, for example: one looks for everything to be backed up by test certification; specs. are far, far more detailed these days than formerly (than they need to be?) largely in order to be able to turn around later and state: 'well that spec's bullet-proof' with good reason.
But I was thinking later of a natural justice outcome:
Say a Contractor / Client takes a 'how much can we fleece this guy's insurance for?' attitude with a naieve if otherwise competent architect.
The architect is hardly likely to want to work with such a Contractor / Client again.
Story gets repeated.
One less architect available to do the work / willing to put Contractor on tender list.
Now, pretty soon the resevoir of architectural practices available is going to dry up, not to mention a general reputation for unscrupulousness gradually taking root. Not only this, but the many benefits of repeat working relationships are left untapped.
Ergo, speculative, mercenary legal forays into reserves of insurance cash are, ultimately, going to be a modus operandi with a pretty short shelf life.
One would hope...
Anyway, well done to Frank & Co. for being savvy and looking after themselves. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
mx2
millennium club
Joined: 18 Jan 2006
Posts: 1988
Location: Miami, Florida
|
| Posted: Fri Aug 04, 2006 4:23 pm Post subject: |
|
|
We don't carry insurance for this very reason. We've had lawyers literally turn and run when we told them how our coffers did not exist. They definitely go fishing for loot...the clients and contractors. I don't recommend NOT carrying insurance (on record) but I am also of the mind that if an architect screws up that bad, they ought to find another profession. Any decent architect who spends the time and thought required behind any project should never be in this predicament.
Some good sense, some great CYA notes (ie, architect design intent is based on "specific document (ie survey) given by client on such and such a date and architect assumes correct and accurate data to the best of his ability, and if contractor finds any discrepency all work is to halt and architect immediately notified, etc, etc..." 
We got pages of this crap, plastered all over our dwgs...and still, it comes down to really spending the time and carefully reviewing all the details of a project. Or, I highly recommend hourly contracts.
mx2
_________________
*Art of Architecture: The conscious use of skill and creative imagination in the production of an aesthetic building.
*Science of Architecture: The calculated use of technical skill and knowledge in the construction of a functional building. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
solidred
Joined: 05 Jan 2006
Posts: 771
Location: Scotland
|
| Posted: Fri Aug 04, 2006 4:49 pm Post subject: |
|
|
Trust you're enjoyning your Friday afternoon in Miami, MX2. Bet it's sunny. I've a friend who works at Arquitectonica there...
Anyway, back in ol' Blighty, we have to carry minimum levels of PII. Beyond that, it's kept to a minimum for exactly the reasons you mention, even if some clients occassionally want us to carry more... then it becomes a judgement call. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
mx2
millennium club
Joined: 18 Jan 2006
Posts: 1988
Location: Miami, Florida
|
| Posted: Fri Aug 04, 2006 5:10 pm Post subject: |
|
|
Partly cloudy...thought we had a hurricane coming but it fizzled out. Arquitectonica is a well know firm, but it doesn't garner much respect by locals. I won't say why just in case there are litiguous issues I can;t think of....aaaah, it's time for a drink. I've got the baby blues...wife, mother-in-law, aunt-in-law (sisters) and 3 week old baby -...
I'm ready to dig a hole and sit in it. 
Good thing I'm in love with my little -...makes this whole freaking mess worthwhile, and I just started.
Drinks on me mate!! TGIF 
mx2
_________________
*Art of Architecture: The conscious use of skill and creative imagination in the production of an aesthetic building.
*Science of Architecture: The calculated use of technical skill and knowledge in the construction of a functional building. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
solidred
Joined: 05 Jan 2006
Posts: 771
Location: Scotland
|
| Posted: Fri Aug 04, 2006 5:34 pm Post subject: |
|
|
cheers
btw, my friend Jose, I think, suits Arquitectonica: surface flash / good times guy but a determined and trustworthy guy underneath. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
RWL
Joined: 10 May 2004
Posts: 399
|
| Posted: Mon Aug 07, 2006 8:38 am Post subject: |
|
|
Great discussion, and yes, I was looking for this when I posted the article [and before I, an old guy, spoke up]
My deepest concerns are the tremendous disconnect between the production of this facility [the realitycin the article] and the ballyhoo given over its concept and design. I think many "signature" architects have problems with their projects becuase their overwhelming concentrationis creating the new forms and shapes,and talking about the deeper meaning of them [Wright alwsys had leaky roofs].
Serving your client PROPERLY is the primary goal and should NEVER be overlooked. Architects should not be seeking to build momuments to themsleves that are funded by others [even if done so willingly; and especially if pubic funds are used-- not an issue with Disney of coruse].
And to purposely establish a cap on liability in the service contract to me tells that precision and overall quality are, or will be in doubt and become problems. It, to me, is admission that the architect KNOWS, well, thngs won't be given due consideration or done properly and when the s _ _ _ hits the fan, the architect will be suitably "encased" against the outfall.
An Architect should enter every project with a mindset to be the best; to do the best job possible for the client; and to perform technically to the limit of his/her knowledge [or other around them].
Poor construction whether designed by incompotent or signature person becomes crap in the same manner as it deteriorates-- even though the client paid double and waited a decode for those few "good moments" at the ribbon cutting [just prior to the building starting to die].
We all need to practice the whole of our profession-- not selected pieces! |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
P.C.
millennium club
Joined: 26 May 2004
Posts: 2163
Location: Denmark
|
| Posted: Mon Aug 07, 2006 9:07 am Post subject: |
|
|
| Since the project started we been able to se lots of construction foto's --- and I am sorry to say, that each and every picture of the core steel structure only showed, that this structure was simply put together with avaible "H" and "I" steel profiles. Now that alone could have been a great challance for the craftsmen ,but I wonder how much fiddeling acturly was involved --- also I fail to realise any real innovative edge - just putting together heavy steel profiles untill they can be covered ; I fail to see how the logistics could profit from hands-on works and the most silli thing about it is how they bended steel profiles never made to be bended, they did it with huge expenses but realy, bending and fiddeling ,as fighting the materials and patching untill there was a hollow shell ontop when the hollow shell was there what about the interiours, the internal walls and floors, no wonder this attemt for a innovative building structure was over budget --- Gee if they made ships that way. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
mx2
millennium club
Joined: 18 Jan 2006
Posts: 1988
Location: Miami, Florida
|
| Posted: Mon Aug 07, 2006 9:50 am Post subject: |
|
|
To solidred, funny you just described half the city...
To RWL, I don't completely agree with the notion that architcts MUST restrain themselves in order to meet the lowest common denominator. Could you imagine this conversation when designing St Peter's, the Parthenon or any project for that matter? I mean, do we want to design 4 story boxes (painted white?) ONLY, all over the planet? That would be a builders dream...(copy/paste, copy/paste...()
mx2
_________________
*Art of Architecture: The conscious use of skill and creative imagination in the production of an aesthetic building.
*Science of Architecture: The calculated use of technical skill and knowledge in the construction of a functional building. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
RWL
Joined: 10 May 2004
Posts: 399
|
| Posted: Mon Aug 07, 2006 11:11 am Post subject: |
|
|
Gosh, didn't mean architects should be tethered.
I think every client is open to and many expect creative suggestions and designs from architects.
My basic point is that the project doesn't stop with an approved design concept. We need to see that it is documented and detailed to work in the owner's best inerest with no problems of function or construction.
But to purposely restricted one's laibility so early seems to indicate just the reverse-- i.e., we do stellar designs, but.....................we're not too sure how it will come out in the end.
I don't care what shape or principle is involved, but there is need for reliability in the work throughout, and freedom from inhernent problems. the owner is willing to pay the freight forthe project as designed-- but not for "unrequested" problems!!! |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
RWL
Joined: 10 May 2004
Posts: 399
|
| Posted: Wed Aug 09, 2006 8:29 am Post subject: |
|
|
10,000 RFIs = poorly executed project documentation
Double the cost for any client is a disservice and studily unthinkable
9 years for bring a project or this dimension to completion is ridiculous
This is servide to the profession overall; to "architecture"????????
Come on!!!!
If this was a medical situation, the paitnent would be long dead; the malpractice suit[s] mammounth; and the doctor without license |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
RWL
Joined: 10 May 2004
Posts: 399
|
| Posted: Wed Aug 09, 2006 8:30 am Post subject: |
|
|
10,000 RFIs = poorly executed project documentation
Double the cost for any client is a disservice and stupidly unthinkable
9 years to bring a project of this dimension to completion, is ridiculous
This is service to the profession overall?; to "architecture"????????
Come on!!!!
If this was a medical situation, the paitnent would be long dead; the malpractice suit[s] mammounth; and the doctor without license |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
blogger
del.icio.us
digg
slashdot
