>
>
> AIA Mythical Belief #1:  The architect is at the top of the food chain, ergo,
> he cannot be wrong, mistaken, specious, faulty or otherwise questioned as to
> the veracity of a given decision.

Who should we appoint to determine which myths to keep and which to toss?  Will
you strip away all construction myths?  Which traditions will you toss?  I find
the traditional structures and formalities useful for resolving conflicts.  I
also find them liberating when I dealing with exceptionally skilled
individuals.  Under the best of conditions the contractor does not have to fear
unreasonable interpretations of contracts and the architect learns and gains
experience that allows him/her to prepare increasingly effective documents.
Ultimately, its not the problem with architects you need to be focus on, its the
problem of who you choose to work with.

I am offended by clients, conservators and design professionals who make blanket
negative statements about contractors.  My real world experience even has me
convinced that prequalifying contractors is a bad ideaa because some of the best
I've worked with do not look like qualified construction professionals on paper.

If you want to improve the value of the architect to your work, don't paint them
all with the same brush.

It is not a food chain.  It is a decision making structure.  If you gather two
master carpenters, an engineer, a preservation maintenance professional, a young
architect, a mid career preservation architect and a seasoned architect who
picked up an F in front of his AIA along the way, and you listen respectfully
too all fo the reasons for resolving a problem and have three legitimate
approaches, somebody has got to make the decision.  I vote for the guy with the
F.  Its conservative, its traditional, possibly arrogant, but , you don't get
that F for nothing.  And from my experience,  you get it for being somebody
people can trust.

What good does it do you to alienate the architects who are listening?

-jc