Subject: | |
From: | |
Reply To: | |
Date: | Fri, 7 Jan 2005 08:40:00 -0600 |
Content-Type: | multipart/alternative |
Parts/Attachments: |
|
|
Because in 1770 we had very few architects, but we had a good supply of
builders. Builders provided most of the services we assign today to
general contractors and architects. Also, we require an architect for
a bedroom addtion in 2004 because we have created social contracts to
protect our real estate investments from the creative streaks of our
neighbors (as well as their corner-cutting). But, you must live in a
pretty fancy neighborhood if an architect is "required" for a bedroom
addition. Its my understanding that architects aren't generally
required for much of anything at the residential scale.
-jc
On Jan 7, 2005, at 8:26 AM, Met History wrote:
> In a message dated 1/7/05 9:23:08 AM Eastern Standard Time,
> [log in to unmask] writes:
>
>
> An architect may understand the nature of the problem and design a
> solution responding to the need, and recognize a Home Depot need when
> he/she sees it.
>
>
> So why do we require an architect of 2004 to add a bedroom to a
> non-architect building of 1770? c
|
|
|