Angela Putney wrote:
>
> <<<<< Timothy Kane wrote:
> >       To the many -- May I suggest that [you] get an idea of what
> >architecture is and what architects do (beyond the one project you had
> >a bad time with).  You'll be doing everyone a favor.
>
>         Unfortunately, I think that you will find many people with examples
> of buildings built that do not serve the intended purpose well, due entirely
> to the architect and not the future tennents for whom it is designed. For
> example,  the auditorium built at a well known engineering university
> which has horrid acoustics. The architect refused to make changes after
> some of the resident engineers pointed out that it would be bad because
> it wouldn't look right (I have sat in the auditorium repeatedly and
> sometimes I have been unable to hear a thing, whereas a few seats over
> the sound is crystal clear). Then there is another university where the
> library has the most unusable design I have ever seen and tried to use,
> all because the architect wanted to make a statement. Both of these
> were designed by extremely well known and respected architects.
> ***They could not have been fired for not doing a good job because the
> donor or board choosing the architect and design wanted a building built
> by architect X on their campus.*** (In the case of the library, I know that
> the donor said that achitect X will build the building. Period.).
>         I am positive that there are plenty of architects out there who can
> and do design good museums, auditoriums, libraries, etc. and who work
> well with the future residents to make sure everyone is happy. However,
> I am sure there are plenty of cases (perhaps those which are presently
> being discussed) where those who are trying to communicate with the
> architects have no power to fire them. Thus the architects can ignore the
> fact that the classrooms are in a dark basement and the different
> departments are located far from one another, as long as they can
> convince the purse holders that it is an excellent design. It is unfortunate
> that this is occuring.
>
>                                                 Angela Putney, Ph.D.
>                                                 Physics Management Fellow
>                                                 American Institute of Physics
>                                                 One Physics Ellipse
>                                                 College Park, MD 20740
>
>                                                 [log in to unmask]
I only wish the architect had as much power as you seem to think he
does.  Most likely, it is not a matter of the architect convincing the
one with the "purse strings" as you indicated, but the one with the
money saying no for what ever reason (usually because it has to do with
money).  A common occurance is for the architect to say from the outset
that an acoustical consultant will be needed and those in charge
refusing for financial reasons.  By the time they wise up, the building
is basically designed and there is no budget to redesign for changes.
In addition, the accoustic functioning of the building is only one
aspect of the functioning of the building.  It is impossible to design a
building which functions at 100%, something has to be sacrificed and its
the architects job to decide what.  Architects design and make these
decisions based upon the information and resources of the client.
Unfortunately, the client is rarely the user and the clients usually do
not (especially universities) like to consult the users because it slows
the process.  I'm sure the architecture faculty at the universities you
wrote about were not consulted, asked to review, or were even informed
about these projects.


Chris Patterson