>  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.


Based on a few projects with which I have been involved, I have also
found this to be the case.  I have also found the concept of "value
architecture" -- i.e., making every square foot count for the mission of
the institution -- is in force and some
nice-for-the-staff-but-not-essential-for-the-mission features get
abandoned.  And in areas where space is expected to bring in money, any
space that is NOT moneymaking--such as storage--is deemed inessential as
well and gets value-architectured out.  These decisions are made by the
building committee, board, senior staff, or whatever, NOT the
architect.  The architect may even put up a fuss about losing these
spaces, but the bottom line is that s/he is getting paid to design what
the board wants, and if the board says no, out it goes.

I'm not saying it's right or wrong, just that it happens more frequently
than the media or museum journals would have us believe.

Julia Moore
Indianapolis Art Center