Structural Engineer and Architect Relationship 1

[Baldapour]

Hi All,
I wonder what your experience is like with Architects?
I am a technician and I'm having a hard time with 2 different architects, as they seem to relay on me to provide them with drawings (not sketches) so they can comments without them having to draw anything.
We provide them with GA drawings, but for them to change their drawings when they revise anything, no, they just mark up ours and they call it a day, then we have to change ours.
One of them doesn't even provide us with a full set of GA, we have to do a lot of guess work.
Both are external architects for 2 different practices.
Is you experience similar to mine, better, worst, let me know?
For information, I work for structural engineers and we provide structural services for Architects and clients, we are not providing CAD services.
Thanks

 

[r13]

They are paid for their ideas, and you are paid to develop (draw) theirs ideas. Depends on person, there are a lot of conflict in views between engineers and architects too.

 

[human909]

It likely depends on your locality and your industry. But strangely enough I've had better dealings with architects than I had with structural engineers. Most architects I've dealt with have been competent, communicated well and just generally done the job properly. I've had numerous negative experiences in dealing with structural engineers. Poor communication, lazy design and unethical behaviour when they have been called out on inadequate designs.

Of course I might be more likely to be critical of engineering as that is my area of expertise. However when it comes to communication the difference have been stark.

 

[BAretired]

Baldapour,
Your experience with architects is unlike anything I have experienced, so I would say it is unique. Usually, architectural drawings have advanced to a considerable degree before structural drawings are started. Typically, floor plans, building elevations and typical sections are submitted to the structural engineer to get him started.

For unusual buildings, concepts are discussed among all of the affected consultants before anyone spends too much time on his drawings, but the architect never reviews or marks up my drawings before proceeding well into his own.

EDIT:
Your post suggests to me that you are a technician providing architectural drawings. If that is the case, I would not expect your experiences to be similar to mine.
Your edited post indicates otherwise, so please ignore the stricken comment.

BA

 

[WARose]

I am use to the architect providing GAs (at least in commercial work).....not the other way around. Especially in architectural work, the architect is the one speaking to the client on a day to day basis and knows what they want.

We typically wind up fighting over the height/length of [this or that].....and they may have to alter their GAs accordingly. (As an example, some years back I got them to lower a overall building height so we could get a acceptable height as per the seismic requirements for the system we wanted to use.)

 

[Baldapour]

Interesting; I am a structural technician working for a structural engineer firm, so not providing any architectural services, just like any other engineering firm we use architect's drawing to develop our structure and GA drawings, then a yoyo game starts between architects and engineers until most issues have been resolved, but for some reason, these 2 Architects they seem to think that the structural engineer should provide revised drawings for every item, when in another hand they provide the bear minimum in some instance nothing, they just mark up my drawings.
I did work for different firms and my experience with architect varies from good, bad to ugly, but this time around it seems like one way traffic.

 

[glass99]

I have been frustrated by the laziness and fuzziness embedded in the design-build process. If for example its an "off the shelf" facade system, its still needs a lot of customization, but the architect's fee for designing it is minimal bc the expectation is that the contractor will be dealing with the details. You are still reliant on the arch for layout dims, but they are only +/-1" bc they don't really understand whether they are dimensioning to a mullion centerline, or a rough opening or a finished surface.

 

[Baldapour]

Does this have something to do with personality, experience, education?
I did work with architects, and it was a positive experience, because they were doing architecture and they've had technicians to support them, so the coordination process went smooth as butter.
Now thinking about it, these 2 architects, they do the drawings themselves, hence maybe why they offload CAD tasks to us in a way.

 

[human909]

I am a structural technician working for a structural engineer firm

That does sound odd that the architects aren't producing their own drawings for communication and just marking up yours. Like you say the yo-yo game starts, but normally fully fleshed out architectural drawings come first.

I'm currently doing a project where it it structure first, then comes the architect. But that is because this is industry. The architect is involved more to check and document compliance to building codes (mostly fire & egress).

 

[Baldapour]

We did get GA drawings from both architects, but they don't bother changing theirs during the coordination process, they just mark up ours.

 

[EZBuilding]

Sounds like the Architect is eating your lunch

 

[Baldapour]

@EZBuilding

 

[r13]

Since your company is the lead in the projects, the architects were hired at a consultant base, which did not expect them to do the heavy lifting (by contract) like reproduce drawings. Didn't the engineers do that too - mark on the drawings and expect the technician and draftsperson to develop the finished drawings?

 

[dhengr]

Baldapour:
It seems to me that you should be talking to your own boss about this problem. If you are doing two thirds of their drafting for these two Arch., your fees and schedule with them ought to reflect this. You seem to be saying you are acting as their drafting dept. without being paid for it. And, if this is making your work more difficult or taking you longer and getting you in trouble, your boss should know this, so he can bring this up with them. If your boss doesn’t care, and isn’t bitching at you about your time involved on the project or your performance, just accept that as the way he wants you to work with these two guys, that’s their arrangement. How does he want you to handle these two clients? As mentioned by others, this is a little unorthodox as relates to the interaction of an Arch. office and a Structural Engineer’s office, but that must be their arrangement. One advantage may be that you get to show things and dimension things to show the critical structural considerations. This is often the area where there is much contention btwn. the two professionals. You get to show where mech. opening, and the like, can go, as opposed to seeing that they put them where they can’t go, and then fighting to get them changed.

 

[Baldapour]

@retired13 Not a lead on a project but a structural consultant, also, we are not doing architectural drawings, only structural.
The point is wherever there is a change be it structural, architectural, mechanical.... any discipline involved has to provide drawings and revised drawings when necessary; To rely on others by just marking their drawings up, without producing your own drawings that's not how it should be.
In coordination, structural engineer has to tweak his structure to fit within the architectural elements as much a possible, if not, a common ground should be found, otherwise the architect has to give something to make things move forward, and then issue revisions, not just mark up engineers drawings, and this is valid for other disciplines too; MEP coordination is not a straight forward cut as we usually see them/their drawings once in a blue moon or like a comet.
Business owner is aware of the situation, which is frustrating for him, as he can't move to new projects since his is stuck with these two at the moment.

 

[dik]

The difference between an Architect and an Artifact is about 20 years...

I've worked with a couple of exceptional Architects... Architects differ widely... some great some not so great.

Dik

 

[MrHershey]

Like dik, my experience varies greatly. Some are great and I hardly have to do anything. Some suck so bad and are so helpless it's a wonder that they manage to get dressed all by themselves every morning. Most are somewhere between those two extremes. And this isn't to pick on the architects, I assume the same applies to structural consultants as well. I just don't interact with a bunch of different structural consultant to see the whole spectrum.

I have been frustrated by the laziness and fuzziness embedded in the design-build process.

My experience has varied widely here too. Again I think very dependent on the team you have in place. I've had design-build jobs that were hopelessly chaotic because architect and consultants wanted to push everything on contractor and contractor was treating it like a design-bid-build job and not looking at anything until they did shop drawings. I've also had design-build jobs where everyone was engaged and communicating early and often that went off without a hitch. Those ones are the easiest construction admin jobs I've ever had. Everyone's on the same page and has been for months/years by the time they start building. So there's very little confusion in the field and thus very few RFIs, very few substitution requests, very few contractor mishaps. You just check the usually near perfect shop drawings, take your site visits, and enjoy watching the thing get built.

 

[dik]

The one project I worked on, the Architect was chosen by the prime consultant simply because he had a seal... The only skills the Architect had was that he could draw perspective drawings. He had no clue about structure or building envelopes. The project eventually ended up in court because the principals were involved in fraud... a dinner theatre establishment in the Muskokas, Ontario... with numerous back rooms...

Dik

 

[STrctPono]

Some are great and I hardly have to do anything. Some suck so bad and are so helpless it's a wonder that they manage to get dressed all by themselves every morning. Most are somewhere between those two extremes.

I've come to learn that your interpretation of Architects actually applies to the larger human population in general! The general public seems to believe that esteemed professions (physicians, lawyers, engineers, architects, etc..) are somewhat exempt from professional ineptness... I'm afraid it just isn't true.

 

[phamENG]

The general public seems to believe that esteemed professions (physicians, lawyers, engineers, architects, etc..) are somewhat exempt from professional ineptness...

Not where I live. Around here, esteemed professions are generally considered to be the most inept...