tec
Forum Replies Created
- Posts
Thankyou for the link:
Writing bids & proposals
http://www.cgarchitect.com/upclose/article7_DW.asp
When i see an article written like this one, i definetly can see how architects take specialist very seriously over in the States.
Probably a fair point – they are not used to getting a first round ‘knock-out’ though. A free reign, or a clear road straight to just having to deal with spaces, lighting, views to take advantage of the perfect site. Something always will happen in the mean time, either a planner, soil engineer, client, budget or some such other extremity will intervene to drag things out until that last 15th round.
The architect has to be like Ally, and the sweetest punch of all, is the one he never gave to George Foreman on the way down! 🙂 It is often quite like that actually, whoever tires out most, and gets hammered out of contention. Foreman made the fatal error of waisting all his strength early on in the fight, and that is architects nightmare situation too.
I would say, i have to agree with the points raised by alot of other posters in those threads garethace. This function of an architect, ‘finding the right people at the right time’, is something is would like to deal with.
Yes, where i work, whenever the boss goes off on hols, gets sick, is busy out on site, the whole project can very quickly slide back into a state of total confusion in no time at all. That is because everyone else here, apart from the Architect (and we do have many, many in-house and outsourced specialists) is trained to do one task very well.
They are not trained as generalists – and are not used to leading from the front. While being very good from a supporting point of view. The partners here don’t know squat about computers, but still, when they are around things just seem to get done easier, than if they were not here for whatever reason.
A problem now, is people moving, coming and going.
tec.
P.S. Like i have said, it is not only about getting the right people at the right time. It is not only an architect being so pressed for time on a short design schedule such as a competition entry, while doing normal jobs aswell.
Very often the architect has 10 long years to think about a project, and many specialists, experts, personalities, points of view etc, etc can dominate a project for short periods of time. Projects switch their direction quite often – and sometimes end up where they began, having exhausted many, many possiblities.
So the principal Architect tends to be the only person left at the end. You mentioned that book by Bryan Lawson, which i am indeed familiar with. Check out the chapter about Michael Wilford, where he talks about big corporate clients on large projects like Singapore University scheme.
The orginal person, who was so enthuasiastic about the project, who was on the board – refered to in that case as the ‘client’. By the end of the project had vanished, and was replaced by somebody, alot less ‘into’ the thing, and alot less enthuasiastic about the project. So that made it exceptionally difficult for Wilford.
But in general Michael Wilford prefers to present many alternative schemes initially. Gets a clients to pick one, and from the very beginning feel ownership for the scheme that he/she/they have picked.
Steven Holl is also good at this i hear – the church of the seven latterns anecdote etc. I have seen jobs in my own experience where the site/client/brief changed almost every week for two whole years!!! Crazy.
Look at the seawolf submarines, or the Boeing airplanes – huge profit earners – it even took them ages to go from drawing boards to computerisation.
The major gain in computerisation of these things, is the shere number of individual components which have got to be engineered to specification. And how the smallest, tiniest piece can be the fatal flaw that makes an airplane fall out of the sky.
When you design things like airplanes, it makes perfect sense in my view to distribute/delegate the duties out to a machine, that just does what it is told, and makes less errors on the whole – unlike the human factors.
The web scares and insecurity on the web has been a big set back too though i think.
Personally i just think that computers are like an extension of the image at the moment – it is nice to be ‘seen’ to be catering for new technology and so on. These tech terms all roll off the tongue like the other architecture buzz words do.
Hopefully the dust will settle at some stage. It is rathering interesting how much publicity surrounded the IFSC and Docklands Development Authority back in the late nineties, yet, now is a much, much better time to go down around and to experience a little tiny fragment or two of that entire ‘vision’.
IT is far from capable of capturing this entire vision for a complex project and timescale as yet.
A better direction for this thread about technology and architecture, would be as others suggested. What do you think will happen in ten years from now in computing?
Rather than merely being focussed upon what the technology is able to provide you now, as in 2003. Which might be very impressive, something tells me still at the back of my brain – this will all look old and stupid given a couple of more years.
Designs/buildings from the 1920s, 1930s, 1940s and 1950s are all studied carefully by architects nowadays – they do not age quite so much as computer systems. Perhaps this speaks of why Architects are so reluctant to invest more of their valuble time into understanding/partaking in the specialisation that is computing nowadays, and tomorrow.
Hell, i even know plenty of IT managers who have assumed totally managerial status now – instead of worrying what IT is doing at the moment. That is the natural progression for many people, whatever job they are in.
I assume you are like me, a young body starting out in the profession, yeah? My Dad always said, not to rush life, it does sort itself out too you know.
This is what has happened where I work. Three new Architects in the office, just arrived and after about a month were given three new P4 Dell workstations. The rest of us were there for years begging to have a PC, and having to make the most of the grey/green/silver grey macs. I hate fact that my MAC is slow and awful, and with the right pc kit/software productivity could be improved by x amount. But I also have respect there are higher purposes at work here entirely, than me just trying to prove that I can be really high tech and clever about CAD/3D design or something.
The architectural firms, alot of them have been around for years, and are respected for their tradition in being involved in work that can sometimes take a whole generation to pass through the pipeline and become a reality. I guess when I have worked here for ten years or so, I may just know something about projects/timescales and the architectural profession. We should never just decide to judge computers in workplaces on mhz/mb. Computer systems do allow firmly established architectural practices to design masterplans, which will affect peoples lives on a completely different timescale to the computer systems lifespan. Where is a few mhz here or there, in relation to the longitude of the built environement? Architecture is primarily about peoples perception of the organisation/the space, the image, the economics…. higher goals than just mb/sec.
I would love to prove to guys here at work how intelligent I am at using new softwares, with high speed INtel chips etc, etc. But where is that in relation to the greater picture, that is the architect – the designer of the built environment? The computer system, whatever brand you put on it, is just a tool, and a means to a much greater end result. In business, waisting more than half a minute, arguing, brooding or otherwise feeling pissed off over who is using what system – is a major big sponge for soaking up the productivity energy/time of employees. For some unearthly reason, where MACs and PCs come together, and different versions, upgrades, softwares, Oses are present this situation is a nightmare to try and resolve. So you can just go grey yourself trying to sort out something which will never be sorted.
Computerisation is a big enough adjustment in itself, without adding even more obstacles to jump over, or trip on in my view. I am only finally coming of age myself, in my understanding of how professionals/relate to IT. It has never been easy though.
Best wishes.
