edison wrote:
>I dropped in for a day or so and have mixed feelings about the conference too.
>
Mike,
Interesting comments. I've been on the contractor receiving end plenty
of times with inexperienced designers who felt that they had to manage
the workforce. As the official APT-PTN liaison I hear you very clearly
on the absence of the contractor from the presentation. I was not able
to go to this APT conference.
If these designers would stop shopping their work and their clients to
cheap and unskilled labor it might help. But as they demonstrate an
assumption that there is no intelligence in the trades it is also
possible that they have no clue that there is a better world around
them. An experienced and self-respecting trade would not only leave them
alone at the podium, but would quickly write them off on bidding any
projects with them -- or the contractor may be equally arrogant that
they can outplay the idiot (been there, done that). So the designer
through their own arrogance can be working to reduce the quality of
their own work.
It should not have to be up to contractors to weed out these sorts, and
certainly not at the incredible cost that is incurred on a worksite.
Very early in my career I was told never to experiment on a client's
money. Of course, we have to do a bit of experiment always and on
historic projects in particular, but it is the idea to inhibit wasting
money on idle ideas that matters. Like with golf, they say not to
practice on the course but play through. A contractor who is dependent
to have to live through a project with this designer is not well advised
to get up and tell in a public forum why they think the designer is full
of crap. That can lead to a very nasty set of problems and in particular
if there is not enough people w/in APT who will stand behind the
contractor's comments. Might as well take the bull to slaughter sooner
than later. I would rather have their money than their bile.
I am currently working on a project where I was asked in as a team
player at the beginning by the architect. We have developed so far a
really fine relationship with the end client. It is a private project,
it qualifies under my rule to only work with people that I like. I do
not like arrogant designers who want to push the workforce around and
who have a habit to come up with dumb ass methods. Anyways, the
architect and I are working out how our two teams, his team, my team,
will interface with the client. He has been working on a survey and
drawings, with our field assistance on logistics. We did some interim
stabilization work and in the process took away elements of the wood
cornice. I thought I was trying to keep up and went to doing a study of
the cornice system. Turns out his team was a bit behind the curve and
they did not have all the information they needed for the drawings. I am
the only one with the full scale profiles of the mouldings. So we shared
with them access to our hundreds of photographs that we had taken for
our own interest.
For the cornice and associated Phase 2 scope I worked out front to back
a 4 page outline of sequence of work, with a logic behind it. I also
sketched out the cornice elements in a fairly proportional manner and
numbered them -- so that we would know what pieces we were talking
about. I had to do this so that I would have some clue as to at least
one optimal pathway so that I could cost the work without having to run
a multiple of dead end scenarios. I now know exactly how many square
inches of linseed oil application are needed. Estimating is a lot of
work that some designers seem to think happens overnight if the
contractor leaves out a bowl of milk. Keep in mind that there is not
specification as yet and I need to cost the work so that we can get
started before winter. I then sat with the architect for three hours to
go over it point-by-point. Essentially we are saying that we spent three
hours happily discussing a 2' square cross section of a wood cornice.
Though the shutters on the structure are a long way down the pike I had
an opportunity to get one refurbished as a mock-up. It was a quick
decision that had to be made and I felt though not immediatly critical
to the cornice work that in the long run it would be a large benefit to
the end client. I came back to the architect and client and asked for
their permission to proceed with one shutter and told them that I would
pay the $500 regardless if they agreed to it or not. If you want to
experiment with someone's money get their permission first. The shutter
is almost finished and I cannot wait to present it. If I did not happen
to know, and like, a tradesman who is obsessive about shutters I would
not have had the opportunity. I would not do anything like this or ever
offer same to any designer that I thought was an ass.
Though along with all that above I have been talking with the architect
and the end client as to the importance of our thinking about the
project, background thinking, that there are several unique elements to
the scenario that would make it a good subject for an
architect-contractor presentation of a positive approach to
collaboration. There is a really kool story about preservation by
neglect here as well. Of course, collaboration of architect and
contractor have been presented before... as per the APT Bulletin issue
compiled by Barry Loveland following after IPTW 2000 in PA... but what I
like here with this project is that we are thinking about the
presentation value at the beginning rather than as an after thought. It
is a collaborative effort of consciousness that includes the end client
and as such will have an effect on how the project unfolds.
I am reading Von Clausewitz' On War. I am struck by his discussion of
the qualities of 'genius' required of a General as opposed to the
pedantry of the book learned. Trust me that I have read a lot of books.
War has a fairly clear objective and according to Von Clausewitz the
historical record leans towards Generals learned in the field of battle
as having a better success rate than those taught or teaching theory of
strategy and tactics in university. Possibly one problem to the
insularity of APT is that not enough exposure is given early on in the
education of designers to the trades practitioners. I remember being
told quite frankly by a recent graduate of the Columbia preservation
program, they were having a bit of a problem interfacing on the
worksite, that they had it drilled into them in their classes that the
practicing trades had no knowledge... a justification I suppose for why
the student was encouraged to attend and pay attention in class as the
reward is sacred knowledge? I suppose one might be able with a steady
regress to claim that the divide begins with the first suckle at the pap
if not at some infiinte point prior to conception.
][<en
--
To terminate puerile preservation prattling among pals and the
uncoffee-ed, or to change your settings, go to:
<http://listserv.icors.org/archives/bullamanka-pinheads.html>
|