In my humble opinion, this hot potato question reflects the continuing devaluation (initiated by architects) of the role architects play in the designed and built environment. Architects must get better at avoiding errors, omissions, and solving coordination issues.
It appears that many clients, particularly first time buyers of design services, have little knowledge of what services or skills architects provide. These clients' expectations are all over the place. Some clients expect a 'pretty picture,' which a contractor (somehow) converts into a building. Other clients expect to tell the client what is wanted and expects the architect to just 'do it all.'
These are two extremes.
The truth of the matter is that too many architects truly do not know how to 'build a building' through their design tools.
Many years ago, I interviewed with a firm that had weathered the down years of the late 70s to mid 80s by doing feasibility and master plan studies. When they started to get real building design contracts, they were distraught that their 26 person staff had not one person who ever designed, detailed, and constructed a building.
Today there are advocates of design-boutique architectural practice who want to have separate detailing and construction administration firms handle project execution (maybe even outsource overseas). With all due respect, I advocate going in the other direction: architects must learn the art and the craft of architecture and lead an increasingly complex industry.
Please keep in mind that the rationale for licensure of architects is that we are 'experts in life safety' as demonstrated by examination questions covering building codes. This is legally described as a 'non-delegable' responsibility of the architect 'of record.' We may question if the exam actually demonstrates this knowledge.
Sadly, too many 'experienced architects' are deficient in building code expertise. I've seen too many major built projects, designed by licensed architects, with numerous substantive / serious code violations in areas of egress systems and fire separations. What else may be wrong with those designs . . . ?
So if we accept the proposal (
the architect determines the shape and appearance of the detail and leaves its execution and integrity to the contractor, would the project and client be better served?) then
who is responsible for the design and its code compliance?
Please recall, the code consultants (many of whom I prize and employ) are not professionally liable for the code advice they provide. That responsibility is exclusively mine (as the projects' architect of record).
Some clients, sensing the deteriorating reputation of architects for the code compliance of their designs, have engaged their own 'code consultants.'
One such vastly experienced consultant tried to show his expertise by challenging my code work and asserting that I had failed to provide a code required 2 hour separation between a hospital and a contiguous parking garage. He failed to understand the actual requirements of the International Building Code (applicable in the jurisdiction) and the relevant provisions of NFPA 101 and the inapplicability of NFPA 88. It was only after I got a written interpretation from NFPA that he backed off. Sophisticated code knowledge would reveal how that hospital / garage can be totally open between the occupancies and entirely code compliant. Such knowledge is hard work.
Had my team (enormously aided by our fab code consultant) failed to understand the relevant codes, my client would have spent over a $100,000 providing unnecessary building elements. Would a contractor know any better than the skilled design architect doing full design, production and construction administration?
Lastly, I should observe that the adoption of complex energy codes by virtually all jurisdictions has raised the knowledge required of all licensed architects. Last year I monitored a series of workshops on building energy analysis and design. In the post seminar evaluation forms some attendees protested the materials presented were 'too complex' or 'too difficult.' Having sat through the same session, my reaction was that this material is baseline information with which all licensed architects should be conversant.
Boutique design firms should have a very small place in the profession and, unless they have the full range of architectural expertise, I believe they diminish the reputation of the profession as a whole.
Respectfully, I disagree with this proposal. Please excuse my lack of brevity.
-------------------------------------------
G. Drake Jacobs AIA
Melrose MA
-------------------------------------------