Project Delivery

I agree with most comments posted.

The entire sustainable movement is not supported by everyone, and Architects should not be forced to conform to one way of thinking when it comes to building construction and design, if that is what the AIA B101 is referring in the statement. All Architects should have every alternative at their fingertips during Schematic Design, and sustainablity should not be singled out, but may be incorporated like every other design strategy if the Owner so chooses, which is the Architect's responsibility anyway!

It is the duty of the Architect to design a building based on what the client with the money wants you to do and due to local building codes, more than likely, one will have detention / retention ponds (mosquito pits here in Houston) eating up whatever "environmentally responsible design approaches" one would likely take.

If the AIA wants to include this language in the document, then they should also give Architects the option to have a form without this language. Sustainable design solutions should be client driven, not force fed by the AIA. Not everyone uses AIA contract documents. So unless they change the form or omit vague language, then I guess someone else will create a better legal document to replace that one. It is the duty of the Architect to preserve the Health, Safety, and Welfare of the public, and if that includes sustainibility issues as a client driven demand, then so be it.

-------------------------------------------
Kahne O'Banion AIA
Senior Project Associate
Proem Design-Build Inc.
Houston TX
-------------------------------------------

Mr. Cox's criticism of the AIA contract are very useful, correct and well articulated.  Now it seems obvious that this language needs an immediate re-work - but not necessarily abandonment.

The flaw with Ms. O'Banion's contribution is in the last sentance: "It is the duty of the Architect to preserve the Health, Safety, and Welfare of the public, and if that includes sustainibility issues as a client driven demand, then so be it." The problem is that the welfare of the public with respect to building design, is never, nor should it be, the client's obligation and therefore we should never expect the client to be the driver of sustainable design - even though it would be better, easier, and more likely to succeed if it were so.

The rest of the world is and always has been looking to architects to provide leadership with respect to design issues. Where these issues, condensed to the word "sustainable", contain huge implications, I think it's appropriate for our standard agreement to be an instrument to that purpose.  


-------------------------------------------
William Simmons AIA
Partner
Lothrop Associates LLP
White Plains NY
-------------------------------------------

Architects are required by law to comply with regulations on behalf of Clients who are also subject to regulation which can influence the services provided.  These regulations are imposed by governing agencies which are elected or appointed by people elected by our democratic election process.  For the AIA to try to regulate the design and construction industry by placing some additional regulations into the AIA contracts it going far beyond it's mandate or authority.  It serves neither the interest of architects nor our clients and it is questionable whether or not it serves society's interests.

For sustainable design to be a added service, like estimating, site selection, etc., is fine, but to make it central to the contract is not only inappropriate, it represents hubris on the part of the AIA, who has clearly lost sight of it's charter.

Physicians serve their patients, the Center for Disease Control protects the broader population from the spread of disease.  The CDC is a government agency that is specific to this purpose.  If the American Medical Association (similar to the AIA for physicians) were to require physicians to take some action to penalize their patients, in opposition to the CDC's mission, where would that leave the individual patient?

If the AIA wants to regulate, then they should stop masquerading as a professional organization and apply for federal funding.
-------------------------------------------
Alan Burcope MBA, LEED AP
Saint Louis MO
-------------------------------------------







Original Message:
Sent: 04-27-2012 12:12
From: William Simmons
Subject: Environmetally Responsible Design approaches


Mr. Cox's criticism of the AIA contract are very useful, correct and well articulated.  Now it seems obvious that this language needs an immediate re-work - but not necessarily abandonment.

The flaw with Ms. O'Banion's contribution is in the last sentance: "It is the duty of the Architect to preserve the Health, Safety, and Welfare of the public, and if that includes sustainibility issues as a client driven demand, then so be it." The problem is that the welfare of the public with respect to building design, is never, nor should it be, the client's obligation and therefore we should never expect the client to be the driver of sustainable design - even though it would be better, easier, and more likely to succeed if it were so.

The rest of the world is and always has been looking to architects to provide leadership with respect to design issues. Where these issues, condensed to the word "sustainable", contain huge implications, I think it's appropriate for our standard agreement to be an instrument to that purpose.  


-------------------------------------------
William Simmons AIA
Partner
Lothrop Associates LLP
White Plains NY
-------------------------------------------

"The problem is that the welfare of the public with respect to building design, is never, nor should it be, the client's obligation and therefore we should never expect the client to be the driver of sustainable design - even though it would be better, easier, and more likely to succeed if it were so."?

Show me the evidence that sustainable design has contributed anything or will contribute anything to the public health, safety and welfare and I will agree. Otherwise, I can't. I've seen too many architect cramming sustainable design down the client's throat (with terribly negative impacts to the project) to believe that it is part of our "duty" when it's not client-driven.

-------------------------------------------
Sean Catherall, AIA
Herriman UT
-------------------------------------------







Original Message:
Sent: 04-27-2012 12:12
From: William Simmons
Subject: Environmetally Responsible Design approaches


Mr. Cox's criticism of the AIA contract are very useful, correct and well articulated.  Now it seems obvious that this language needs an immediate re-work - but not necessarily abandonment.

The flaw with Ms. O'Banion's contribution is in the last sentance: "It is the duty of the Architect to preserve the Health, Safety, and Welfare of the public, and if that includes sustainibility issues as a client driven demand, then so be it." The problem is that the welfare of the public with respect to building design, is never, nor should it be, the client's obligation and therefore we should never expect the client to be the driver of sustainable design - even though it would be better, easier, and more likely to succeed if it were so.

The rest of the world is and always has been looking to architects to provide leadership with respect to design issues. Where these issues, condensed to the word "sustainable", contain huge implications, I think it's appropriate for our standard agreement to be an instrument to that purpose.  


-------------------------------------------
William Simmons AIA
Partner
Lothrop Associates LLP
White Plains NY
-------------------------------------------

I wrote a response but I think it landed in another discussion forum, so here goes:
"It is the duty of the Architect to preserve the Health, Safety, and Welfare of the public, and if that includes sustainibility issues as a client driven demand, then so be it." I should re-word that statement as I typed it too quickly......It is the duty for the Architect to preserve HSW of the public, and that should preclude the expectation that sustainabilty will affect the public in any negative way. It is another design strategy, one that has been so politicized that 50% of the country feel that they are being pressured into believing a scam, a hoax, a fraud. I have many clients that think that way.  If the client wants to include this form of design strategy into his building, then so be it. To put language of a subjective nature in a contract only politicizes it, and forces conformity. I do not have many clients who give a you know what about anything green, sustainable, or energy effiecient, but the City, through ammending the IBC 2006, forces us to meet Energy Codes, Drought Resistant planting, Planting minimum numbers of trees and shrubs, water conservation, and the list goes on and on. I am already required by law, and my clients as well, to incorporate sustainable design in my project, through code. There is no need to add this language to a contract between my client and I....but if some people want to exacerbate their liability and provide a steady income for the legal profession, then that is one's perogative. I have always learned in the profession, that you draw something once and do it clearly and concisely. That goes for every aspect of our profession as well. If the laws force me to conform to sustainabilty, then I will not have the same language in a contract.


-------------------------------------------
Kahne O'Banion AIA
Senior Project Associate
Proem Design-Build Inc.
Houston TX
-------------------------------------------