4 ms·

> Talking to the constructors it is normal for architects to specify the impossible If the drawings are indeed for regulators, then architects should be sued w

> Talking to the constructors it is normal for architects to specify the impossible If the drawings are indeed for regulators, then architects should be sued when they prove to be impossible impossible. Failing that, we should get rid of architects to begin with (if they draw impossible things, what good are they?), and have actual engineers draw something that can actually be built. (Of course, the engineer should risk a lawsuit if something goes wrong).

finnthehuman 6y ago
>and have actual engineers draw something that can actually be built. (Of course, the engineer should risk a lawsuit if something goes wrong). The engineers put a note in the drawing that basically tells the contractor to overrule their drawing if it isn't up to building code. Somehow this lets them wash their hands of liability if the contractor builds to specifications that don't meet building code.
abdullahkhalids 6y ago
Let me compare this to physics. We theoretical physicists will publish an experiment that we think is perfectly feasible. When we show it to the experimentalists, they will laugh and implement a very basic version of it with lots of simplifying assumptions, because that is all that is possible within technology and budgetary constraints. They will write a paper about it. The theoreticians will understand things a little better and publish simpler variants of the experiment that are better than what the experimentalists did. This goes back and forth for years, sometimes decades, until both sides have come to an agreement on what is possible and yet useful. I don't think this back and forth is what happens between architects and contractors. Contractors are not paid to produce knowledge, and they have no incentive to better conform to regulations. So I expect the convergence between architects and contractors is very slow. I don't think the solution is to regulate architects more, but rather to create a system where contractors actively provide feedback, so that processes can be iterated upon.
- raihansaputra 6y ago
  > I don't think this back and forth is what happens between architects and contractors. Contractors are not paid to produce knowledge, and they have no incentive to better conform to regulations. So I expect the convergence between architects and contractors is very slow. > I don't think the solution is to regulate architects more, but rather to create a system where contracts actively provide feedback, so that processes can be iterated upon. I really recommend Christopher Alexander's work to you because of these views. He explores how past buildings have managed to be built and how the architect <-> contractor feedback loop can be effective.
  - abdullahkhalids 6y ago
    Thanks. A Pattern Language is on my reading list. But I agree that in different times, cultures and legal regimes the feedback loop might have been much stronger. We should learn from those places.
- buran77 6y ago
  > Let me compare this to physics It's not quite the same though. You are operating in uncharted waters and writing the rules with a feedback loop between theoretical and experimental. But the only bounds are what can practically be achieved given today's technological limits and understanding. Whatever both groups are working on, it stays between those 2 groups of experts. In civil engineering you add a thick layer of regulation. Because what the architect theorizes about, and what the engineer ends up building will be directly populated or operated by the general population. An architect delivering something that isn't actionable as-is or an engineer implementing approximations that don't do the job will sit somewhere between worthless, fraudulent, and maybe even to criminal.
hef19898 6y ago
When we built, we had both, an architect and a construction engineer. The architect was a necessity to send plans for approval (you need a permission to hand in these plans, and an official stamp, both of which our engineer didn't have anymore since he was retired). Besides that, the architect was a complete waste of money. Unable to properly use his CAD software, made a ton planning mistakes. These mistakes had to be fixed by the contractors, e.g. plumbing requires a pump to get waste water to sewer level. For the ground floor that is, first floor is already above sewer level. Our architect passed both floors through the pump. And it continued on. Basically, the architects plans were used as a basis to work from during construction. Luckily we had people able to do so. As our engineer put it: architects "paint" houses, the actual drawings and design to turn into something you can build is done by engineers. Both, architects and engineers are liable for their designs so over here. Reason why the stamp is so important and expensive, you need quite a pricey insurance for that.
- loup-vaillant 6y ago
  > The architect was a necessity to send plans for approval. […] Besides that, the architect was a complete waste of money That's the problem I was trying to point at: you need to pay someone useless for the sake of bureaucracy. How is this not insane? > Both, architects and engineers are liable for their designs so over here. Reason why the stamp is so important and expensive, you need quite a pricey insurance for that. Ah, insurance: the reason why they're allowed to suck, and still be in business. That's not right. If the design is wrong, and it has consequences, whoever approved it should be personally liable for it, at least to a significant extent. A sufficiently serious blunder should bar them from approving designing buildings, or at least approving building designs, ever again. As should repeat offences. Perhaps that's already the case, but the anecdotal evidence I amassed thus far (in France) doesn't isn't encouraging.
  - jdmichal 6y ago
    They are personally liable. That's what their stamp means. And are you claiming that insurance should not be permitted? If so, that seems... Silly. People make mistakes. If a single mistake has the potential to ruin your entire livelihood, you'll quickly find that you're lacking anyone willing to put on their stamp without putting up enough money to cover all the liability. That is, instead of them pooling together to get liability insurance, each individual will instead have to pass on those costs to their customers.
willyt 6y ago
Calling someone an ‘engineer’ doesn’t make them magically a more practical person. I’ve been on the contractor’s side in arguments with structural engineers where they’ve designed details that were literally impossible to weld.
- loup-vaillant 6y ago
  The goal is not to call people "engineers". The goal is to find the engineers. One way to do it is selection pressure: if the people who routinely produced non-working or otherwise impossible designs where eventually barred to do so, there'd be a better chance that the people left would be any good. Does that mean we'd suddenly have a serious lack of engineer? Perhaps. That's only true to the extent that we already lack capable engineers now. It'd just be more visible. I for one would like to be liable for my programming work (at least the part for which I'm paid). I could at least say to my boss "sorry, I can't risk approving that, we need more tests/refactoring for such and such part for such and such reason".
lukeschlather 6y ago
The implication is that regulators would never approve a design that is actually possible to build. That we're in a state where you have to lie to the regulators if you want them to approve your building.

finnthehuman 6y ago

>and have actual engineers draw something that can actually be built. (Of course, the engineer should risk a lawsuit if something goes wrong). The engineers put a note in the drawing that basically tells the contractor to overrule their drawing if it isn't up to building code. Somehow this lets them wash their hands of liability if the contractor builds to specifications that don't meet building code.

abdullahkhalids 6y ago

Let me compare this to physics. We theoretical physicists will publish an experiment that we think is perfectly feasible. When we show it to the experimentalists, they will laugh and implement a very basic version of it with lots of simplifying assumptions, because that is all that is possible within technology and budgetary constraints. They will write a paper about it. The theoreticians will understand things a little better and publish simpler variants of the experiment that are better than what the experimentalists did. This goes back and forth for years, sometimes decades, until both sides have come to an agreement on what is possible and yet useful. I don't think this back and forth is what happens between architects and contractors. Contractors are not paid to produce knowledge, and they have no incentive to better conform to regulations. So I expect the convergence between architects and contractors is very slow. I don't think the solution is to regulate architects more, but rather to create a system where contractors actively provide feedback, so that processes can be iterated upon.

raihansaputra 6y ago
> I don't think this back and forth is what happens between architects and contractors. Contractors are not paid to produce knowledge, and they have no incentive to better conform to regulations. So I expect the convergence between architects and contractors is very slow. > I don't think the solution is to regulate architects more, but rather to create a system where contracts actively provide feedback, so that processes can be iterated upon. I really recommend Christopher Alexander's work to you because of these views. He explores how past buildings have managed to be built and how the architect <-> contractor feedback loop can be effective.
- abdullahkhalids 6y ago
  Thanks. A Pattern Language is on my reading list. But I agree that in different times, cultures and legal regimes the feedback loop might have been much stronger. We should learn from those places.
buran77 6y ago
> Let me compare this to physics It's not quite the same though. You are operating in uncharted waters and writing the rules with a feedback loop between theoretical and experimental. But the only bounds are what can practically be achieved given today's technological limits and understanding. Whatever both groups are working on, it stays between those 2 groups of experts. In civil engineering you add a thick layer of regulation. Because what the architect theorizes about, and what the engineer ends up building will be directly populated or operated by the general population. An architect delivering something that isn't actionable as-is or an engineer implementing approximations that don't do the job will sit somewhere between worthless, fraudulent, and maybe even to criminal.

hef19898 6y ago

When we built, we had both, an architect and a construction engineer. The architect was a necessity to send plans for approval (you need a permission to hand in these plans, and an official stamp, both of which our engineer didn't have anymore since he was retired). Besides that, the architect was a complete waste of money. Unable to properly use his CAD software, made a ton planning mistakes. These mistakes had to be fixed by the contractors, e.g. plumbing requires a pump to get waste water to sewer level. For the ground floor that is, first floor is already above sewer level. Our architect passed both floors through the pump. And it continued on. Basically, the architects plans were used as a basis to work from during construction. Luckily we had people able to do so. As our engineer put it: architects "paint" houses, the actual drawings and design to turn into something you can build is done by engineers. Both, architects and engineers are liable for their designs so over here. Reason why the stamp is so important and expensive, you need quite a pricey insurance for that.

loup-vaillant 6y ago
> The architect was a necessity to send plans for approval. […] Besides that, the architect was a complete waste of money That's the problem I was trying to point at: you need to pay someone useless for the sake of bureaucracy. How is this not insane? > Both, architects and engineers are liable for their designs so over here. Reason why the stamp is so important and expensive, you need quite a pricey insurance for that. Ah, insurance: the reason why they're allowed to suck, and still be in business. That's not right. If the design is wrong, and it has consequences, whoever approved it should be personally liable for it, at least to a significant extent. A sufficiently serious blunder should bar them from approving designing buildings, or at least approving building designs, ever again. As should repeat offences. Perhaps that's already the case, but the anecdotal evidence I amassed thus far (in France) doesn't isn't encouraging.
- jdmichal 6y ago
  They are personally liable. That's what their stamp means. And are you claiming that insurance should not be permitted? If so, that seems... Silly. People make mistakes. If a single mistake has the potential to ruin your entire livelihood, you'll quickly find that you're lacking anyone willing to put on their stamp without putting up enough money to cover all the liability. That is, instead of them pooling together to get liability insurance, each individual will instead have to pass on those costs to their customers.

willyt 6y ago

Calling someone an ‘engineer’ doesn’t make them magically a more practical person. I’ve been on the contractor’s side in arguments with structural engineers where they’ve designed details that were literally impossible to weld.

loup-vaillant 6y ago
The goal is not to call people "engineers". The goal is to find the engineers. One way to do it is selection pressure: if the people who routinely produced non-working or otherwise impossible designs where eventually barred to do so, there'd be a better chance that the people left would be any good. Does that mean we'd suddenly have a serious lack of engineer? Perhaps. That's only true to the extent that we already lack capable engineers now. It'd just be more visible. I for one would like to be liable for my programming work (at least the part for which I'm paid). I could at least say to my boss "sorry, I can't risk approving that, we need more tests/refactoring for such and such part for such and such reason".

lukeschlather 6y ago

The implication is that regulators would never approve a design that is actually possible to build. That we're in a state where you have to lie to the regulators if you want them to approve your building.