3 ms·

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 experimentalist

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.

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.