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>