Praxis; “architecture (is) a practice or collection of practices, an art”, as stated by author dana Cuff in her book “Architecture: The Story of Practice”. When I prompted my mentor, Joel Wenzel with this concept and asked how it related to practice,  you could see his excitement before he started his architectural ramble. I believe the information I’ll be providing will fall under the ‘contracts’ or ‘client/contractor relationships’ categories.

To start off, he defined the differences between a practice-centered-business and a business-centered practice. There is a very distinct difference between the two, and we believe our firm falls under a practice-centered-business; meaning that practice is a main focus, creating explementary and innovative architecture is our primary goal over making ‘an easy extra couple bucks’. This idea is not as common as it should be in the field of architecture and construction due to many architects, designers, ect. in it for strictly the money. Many other things are involved in architecture beyond the money such as ethics. By paying close attention through the entire architectural process of creating something, innovative design is created, relationships are formed, clients are happy, and best of all, your status becomes know and that derives more work for the firm. A primary example of this would be Thomas & Denzinger’s Construction and Administration phase of work. In many instances, the phase is optional if the client desires the architect to do the ‘extra work’. In our office, this is essentially mandatory for all clients to pay a portion to the CA phase of work. Not because we are looking to gather as much of a fee as possible, but because we want to make sure the design is completely properly and how it was envisioned. It can be very easy for an architect to hand off a CD set and say “here ya go, good luck. Bye.” Rather than looking at this phase as an opportunity for extra profits while doing as little work possible, this is the phase Thomas & Denzinger works closely with contractors during the entire construction process to ensure everything is: running smoothly, on time, being installed correctly, and if anything in the design changes in the process it’s easier to work alongside the construction team to make the thought come to life.

Many details such as, interior work, façade details are done completely wrong without the supervision of an architect; and in many instances things are built not in the method show on the CD set, but in a method the builder is most comfortable with (which could also be done incorrectly). Throughout my time at T&D I’ve been blown away in how often Joel, James, or Cassie travels out to site to check up on the construction. They ask questions, answer questions, document the process, and stay in close touch with the clients to keep them updated on everything that follows. This process is extensive and impressive. It truly shows how the firm really wants to create strong architecture and aren’t ‘too good’ to skip this process all together. Alongside that idea, many architects will leave during this process and will be quick to blame the contractor or someone else for any faults in the construction process. We don’t believe this is ethical, nor do we want the client to be left with contractors attempting to decipher our complex work. When things get messy, the true ones stay. The practice centered businesses strive during this phase while business centered practice will do as little as possible while charging the client the most they possible can based off market rates. T&D believe with our model, the work will come. They have certainly built the reputation in the area overt the years and it’s no doubt this method of their CA phase has contributed to their successes. With that said, here are 3 questions based on ethics in relation to clients, contractors, and architects.

1. Considering when an architect is involved in the CA phase, the overall design is enhanced, both parties learn more, and the client becomes more satisfied, should the architect’s involvement in the phase become mandatory? Or is it the contractor’s responsibility to decipher the CD set and complete it to his best ability since he was already chosen and hired for the position?
2. If an architect had the best builder in the state working for them, should the architect still be involved in the CA phase?
3. Should the mentality of architects change about the CA phase? Could this ‘boring’ phase become a phase for architects to learn more about construction, contractor relationships, and construction methods specifically?

 

Personally, I find the CA phase interesting and believe T&D allows growth in their employees by putting forcing them in the field to get them involved with contractors and construction workers. How will one learn how things are constructed by being in the office all the time?