Architects Involvement in the Construction Process:

Is Design-Build the Future? // Luke Custer

Architects rarely have direct input on the construction and detailing of a project.

In a recent article from the popular online blog site Life of an Architect, certified architect Bob Borson defines what it is to be a practicing architect. It is his opinion that the role of the architect varies depending on the size of the firm, and he states that their responsibilities range from “the drawing a building…to writing spec sheets.”(1) This definition however, seems to be missing the importance of the architect during the construction phase of the project. In regards to arguably the most important phase of a project, he merely describes the architect’s role to be “meet[ing] with clients” and “visiting construction sites.”(2) This definitely highlights the most paramount issue facing the practice of architecture today.

Architects are intensely involved in every aspect of design but then seem to take a step back once the construction process begins. This notion was expressed by Dutch designer Piet Hein Eek when he stated that “most architects are not interested in construction,” and that they “do little more than produce drawings and leave others to work out how to build them.”(3) This lack of interest may be the case with some firms, but for many firms the withdrawal stems from a concern for liability. CplusC founder Clinton Cole explains this liability by stating that “as both architect and builder you have to resolve any warranty issues six to seven years after it is handed over to the client.” While such a process may appear cumbersome, Cole is quick to highlight its benefits by explaining that this “obligation gives invaluable insight into how my buildings age, leak, crack, move and wear.”(4) Architects mistakenly believe this liability to be a burden. It really offers architects a unique opportunity for a discovery based design process. A process that provides enormous insight to those who exercise it for use in the future.

A poor brick connection detail.

Unfortunately, a majority of architecture firms do not see it this way. They remain separate from the “burden” of liability and simply acquiesce to Borson’s notion that “architects simply design.”(5)  Eek weighs in stating that “most architects are in fact not architects, because most buildings are drawings which are filled in by engineers trying to achieve the drawing of the architect.”(6)  Fortunately, alternative means of practice are becoming more accepted. According to the Design-Build Institute of America, “about 40 percent of all nonresidential construction projects in both the public and private sector now use a design-build approach.” This is in contrast to the “fewer than 10 percent two decades ago.”(7)  The popularity of design build is onthe rise, and many architects, such as Harold Adam (chairman of RTKL Associates), are experiencing that “you are now seeing more complex projects being done by design-build.”(8)  This is also apparent in a simple evaluation of design build firms such as GLUCK+. Their philosophy stems from the notion that “better buildings result when architects take on the construction process,”(9)  GLUCK+ is not only showing that architects can actively manage the construction process but also do so across a number of project types from housing, touniversity buildings, and even hotels. The same can be said for firms like Kennedy & Violich Architecture, who aren’t as involved in overall construction management as GLUCK+ but still use close ties with sister companies like MATx to create detailed prototypes and mock-ups for detailing purposes. The diversity of these firms’ work, coupled with the awards bestowed upon their projects is quickly extinguishing the belief that “design-build projects are merely confined to small housing and warehousing;”(10)  a claim made by Harold Adam.

Shade structure prototype

Written by Luke Custer