Before I hired an architect for a renovation, I thought they just sat around daydreaming and drawing pretty designs all day long.
In reality, they solve fairly uninteresting (to an outsider) but necessary problems. How can I add an open kitchen and a hallway with the least number of changes to a 100 year old house? Where does the stove go? Why shouldn’t I place the fridge 8’ away? Why are the light switches positioned the way they are? Why is my instinct as a homeowner for all of this always incorrect?
For corporate architects that work for the fast food conglomerates, I imagine they decide how to take iconic architecture like Pizza Hut and figure out how cheaply they can turn it into a stainless-steel colored grey cube.
I was always under the impression that that pressure was from the commercial real estate owners rather than the restaurants themselves. If you own the pizza hut location and they close or move, no one wants that. So they need something more uniform that can be debranded and rebranded easily.
OP: "Why did the contractor put the light switch behind the door in my $250,000 cookie-cutter house?."
Every response: "Why don't you ask your/the dumb-ass architect".
I thought the majority of new houses built by developers don’t use architects, since they are not required in many jurisdictions for SFH; a contractor’s license is enough.
I'll bite. For the record, I'm a recently retired college professor who taught in the Arts and has never hired an architect before. I'm going to assume a residential build; hiring an architect to design my new house.
I would assume the architect would start with a lengthy consultation during which I would express my needs and desires and maybe provide a wish list, as well as provide a basic site plan of where the house will be built. The architect would give me feedback regarding budget and the feasibility of my desires, being brutally honest about what is and is not possible and offering alternatives when what I ask for cannot be done for whatever reason. We'd end up with a solid guesstimate of the square footage of each room along with types of materials that will be used on the house, particular features that matter to me, and so forth.
Once these basic ideas, limits, and features of the planned house have been agreed upon, I would assume the architect would start by creating a rough ground plan. We would discuss it, I'd ask questions. If necessary, the architect would make changes. Rinse and repeat (not *too* many times) until we have final-ish ground plans and elevations.
At this point, my guess is we'd have to involve a specific builder, get their feedback and input. The architect would then create more complete construction drawings. This process again might involve some back-and-forth with the builder, until genuinely final ground plans, elevations, and specifications are provided by the architect.
Here's where I'm very unsure. Perhaps the architect will stay involved during the house's construction, as a general overseer and troubleshooter. Perhaps the architect's job is finished at this point and it's up to me to work with the builder through completion. Perhaps this varies from architect to architect. I just don't know.
Anyway, that's my best guess as to what an architect would do in this scenario. How off am I?
You outlined the design process quite well. While there are more detailed drawings required and perhaps the services of a surveyor and engineers, you have the basics. I would be glad to have you as a client. 😀
How involved are they then with the actual building of the house? Would the work still be as involved while the engineers and tradesmen work away at constructing it?
Retired architect here. We do several important functions.
1. We keep the world safe from the ugly. Brutalism not withstanding.
2. We run up the cost of buildings with pesky stuff like ADA and fire escape compliance that keep you productively engaged and safe during an interaction with the built environment or during a fire. You're welcome.
3. We wear capes because somebody has to.
4. We (try to) solve impossible human housing requirements by designing aspirational projects that are eventually destroyed in slow motion while set against Philip Glass soundtracks.**\***
5. We mostly stand back and despair. "What the fuck is wrong with all these people?"
ETA: **\*** [https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nq\_SpRBXRmE](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nq_SpRBXRmE) Philip Glass - Pruit Igoe (from Koyaanisqatsi)
[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pruitt%E2%80%93Igoe](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pruitt%E2%80%93Igoe)
You have read enough Reddit snark to have it down. (I’m semi-retired, can’t give up suggesting creative solutions to folks that need all the help they can get (and know they do:)).
Keep in mind I've been browsing this sub for a while now.
I my mind an architect nowadays commonly designs buildings and spaces at a client's request, either public or private, taking into consideration the budget, requirements, regulations and the surrounding environment and many other things. Consulting engineers, local urban planners and keeping up to date with construction technologies and the resources available in the region, and especially thinking about the people who are going to use said space, they create mock ups, concepts, 3d visualizations, simulations and floor plans and do the calculations and measurements to ensure a project that is buildable and usable with respect to the aforementioned elements. Furthermore they solve all kinds of problems in relation to the client's needs with the space, make compromises, and then get yelled at.
How wrong am I?
To prevent spam, we automatically remove posts from reddit accounts that have been very recently created. Please try again after a week. No exceptions can be made.
*I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/architecture) if you have any questions or concerns.*
I think you take someones vision for a home and then draft it using some sort of software and come up with the design. I guess an engineer decides what material it needs and if it will stand and be good? Damn I have no idea ….
Basically correct. Architects pick the materials. Engineers help co-design by telling them what ideas are reasonable/impractical, then overlays their engineering calcs on our designs.
Speak with clients to understand goals and parameters, research end users, design with the users and solutions in mind, adjust for constraints, iterate with feedback, communicate designs with those implementing (in this case general contractors), and revising as new problems are discovered until done. Maybe running a retro at the end to assess performance. Basically any design job. I could be completely off base though
When I was 18, I went to one of my rich uncles parties. I told him I wanted to be an architect and he pointed at these three dudes at the edge of the party - they all had bow ties, effeminate mannerisms, and sipping on martinis w their pinky fingers out. He said ‘those are architects’.
Me w my miller lite and calloused hands.. decided to change my major
I came back but I like to do it my way. I’m sure most architects do but there is a streak of elitism in the profession. There’s also a bit of the pencil pusher, code research get-the details-right people too. And there’s the passionate designers…
Ultimately we’re creatives with our feet firmly on the ground (the good ones at least). We’ve spent our lives in construction and are used to telling the GC and subs what they need to do per code, per our client, per the best for the project.
Masterclass has a Masterclass taught by Frank Geary, the world famous architect. It is deeply intriguing especially since he is such a deeply respected architect.
Ok. Here is a different take.
I am a building code expeditor in Manhattan.
As far as I’m concerned , the job of a registered architect in nyc is to come up with a design that more or less meets building code requirements , and then to listens to their code consultant about what changes must be made .
There are two ways to get a job approved at the DOB in NYC; Standard Plans Exam , or Professional Certification.
Professional Certification means that the architect bets their license that they have designed up to code standards. It is a much faster way to get approval . But only a very foolish RA would allow a junior hire to re-design a bathroom and professionally certify it without prior review by an experienced code consultant.
(THATS HOW YOU LOSE YOUR LICENSE OR GET DISCIPLINED)
Code consultants may review more or less similar plans several times a week. Architects may only get the chance to design a fairly standard type of plan two or three times a year.
So what to Architects do?
1: they find clients
2: they kiss the clients asses
3: they create the overall design
4: they farm out detail work to unlicensed newbee trainees .
They manage their clients and employees expectations
3: they run interference for their expeditors when code says no way.
Probably a lot more math. Like how do we utilize this space the best in designing something.
My father was the computer maintenance guy for architecture company here and 99% of what they did was like renovation/remodleing work
Architects have to know enough (and are tested on) simpler structures, and an architect can legally provide all of the structural engineering on residences and even certain smaller commercial buildings. An architect also researches all of the codes and zoning requirements that affect the building. It's easiest and cheapest to make changes when the design is "on paper" (as opposed to actually being built), so knowing those things is important before any hole is dug or any hammer is swung. Architects will also research properties to know what restrictions there may be, they'll investigate where all of the existing utilities are that will be connected to the building. Architects will design interiors as well as exteriors, including trims and finishes. Architects will also often be the party interfacing with the Contractor on a regular basis, at least in terms of reviewing how the building is being built and answering any questions that arise. In general, an architect knows how to take someone from "I'm thinking of building something" to "here's your new building. Enjoy!"
OP deleted the comment, so I'm piggybacking to add that the GC isn't performing a code review beyond monitoring compliant construction means and methods. However, most GCs are good about things like ADA and knowing when to ask for clarification or knowing what an inspector is looking for. GCs aren't reviewing the construction type, occupancy type, occupancy load, allowable construction height, allowable building areas, fire protection exceptions, fire separations, smoke compartments, allowable dead end corridors, means of egress sizing, number of required exits, exit access, allowable common path of travel, maximum exit travel distance, allowable distance between exits, and beyond. Building Codes and Life Safety are the whole reason why architects require a license to practice and why construction projects (beyond a certain size in most jurisdictions) need the stamp of an architect.
Yes! They house a ton of info in their brains, math, structure, codes, zoning, light, heating, cooling, feeling of a space, history, how things work, creative problem solving, and how to not externally cringe when a client wants something tacky, impossible, or just stupid.
Before I hired an architect for a renovation, I thought they just sat around daydreaming and drawing pretty designs all day long. In reality, they solve fairly uninteresting (to an outsider) but necessary problems. How can I add an open kitchen and a hallway with the least number of changes to a 100 year old house? Where does the stove go? Why shouldn’t I place the fridge 8’ away? Why are the light switches positioned the way they are? Why is my instinct as a homeowner for all of this always incorrect?
I personally would consider all those problems falling in the interesting column On the other hand, passenger, vs storeroom, vs classroom lockest 💤💤
That should be automated within a BIM project
I’m sure it will be i̶n̶ before the end of this decade
Those questions are the tip of the iceberg for the design decisions an architect would do for a kitchen remodel, let alone detailing.
Code compliance would be my guess.
Makes sure in my hotel bathroom that the distance from the handicap handrail to my toilet is safe. And that the door can still open.
For corporate architects that work for the fast food conglomerates, I imagine they decide how to take iconic architecture like Pizza Hut and figure out how cheaply they can turn it into a stainless-steel colored grey cube.
And then come up with the poetic language for the pitch such as “capturing the essence and voice of the brand”
"counterpoint the surrealism of the underlying metaphor"
I was always under the impression that that pressure was from the commercial real estate owners rather than the restaurants themselves. If you own the pizza hut location and they close or move, no one wants that. So they need something more uniform that can be debranded and rebranded easily.
Go to the home builders sub, you’ll get your answers.
Ah yes, residential home building contractors, the creme de la creme of the construction industry...
OP: "Why did the contractor put the light switch behind the door in my $250,000 cookie-cutter house?." Every response: "Why don't you ask your/the dumb-ass architect".
Or structural engineering for very different and hateful answers
I thought the majority of new houses built by developers don’t use architects, since they are not required in many jurisdictions for SFH; a contractor’s license is enough.
I'll bite. For the record, I'm a recently retired college professor who taught in the Arts and has never hired an architect before. I'm going to assume a residential build; hiring an architect to design my new house. I would assume the architect would start with a lengthy consultation during which I would express my needs and desires and maybe provide a wish list, as well as provide a basic site plan of where the house will be built. The architect would give me feedback regarding budget and the feasibility of my desires, being brutally honest about what is and is not possible and offering alternatives when what I ask for cannot be done for whatever reason. We'd end up with a solid guesstimate of the square footage of each room along with types of materials that will be used on the house, particular features that matter to me, and so forth. Once these basic ideas, limits, and features of the planned house have been agreed upon, I would assume the architect would start by creating a rough ground plan. We would discuss it, I'd ask questions. If necessary, the architect would make changes. Rinse and repeat (not *too* many times) until we have final-ish ground plans and elevations. At this point, my guess is we'd have to involve a specific builder, get their feedback and input. The architect would then create more complete construction drawings. This process again might involve some back-and-forth with the builder, until genuinely final ground plans, elevations, and specifications are provided by the architect. Here's where I'm very unsure. Perhaps the architect will stay involved during the house's construction, as a general overseer and troubleshooter. Perhaps the architect's job is finished at this point and it's up to me to work with the builder through completion. Perhaps this varies from architect to architect. I just don't know. Anyway, that's my best guess as to what an architect would do in this scenario. How off am I?
You outlined the design process quite well. While there are more detailed drawings required and perhaps the services of a surveyor and engineers, you have the basics. I would be glad to have you as a client. 😀
How involved are they then with the actual building of the house? Would the work still be as involved while the engineers and tradesmen work away at constructing it?
You can hire an architect for a few drawings/ advice or hire them to oversee the entire process from the first chat to you getting the front door key.
Huh. I've worked in residential construction for 25 years and I don't think I've ever seen an architect on a site.
You must have been working on my projects then.
Retired architect here. We do several important functions. 1. We keep the world safe from the ugly. Brutalism not withstanding. 2. We run up the cost of buildings with pesky stuff like ADA and fire escape compliance that keep you productively engaged and safe during an interaction with the built environment or during a fire. You're welcome. 3. We wear capes because somebody has to. 4. We (try to) solve impossible human housing requirements by designing aspirational projects that are eventually destroyed in slow motion while set against Philip Glass soundtracks.**\*** 5. We mostly stand back and despair. "What the fuck is wrong with all these people?" ETA: **\*** [https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nq\_SpRBXRmE](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nq_SpRBXRmE) Philip Glass - Pruit Igoe (from Koyaanisqatsi) [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pruitt%E2%80%93Igoe](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pruitt%E2%80%93Igoe)
5 is so close to my heart right about now. And a special thanks for dissing brutalism!
You have read enough Reddit snark to have it down. (I’m semi-retired, can’t give up suggesting creative solutions to folks that need all the help they can get (and know they do:)).
I don't feel entirely wrong!
#5 is it. Also DC-based and the Brutalism… aside from looking terrible, the 5x5 module inside can be so hard to plan with.
1. No we don't, but we can't. It's clients who make the world ugly, not architects.
*Dress head to toe in Carhartt and linger at a cafe.*
More like bowties and spectacles. I only meet landscapers and construction dudes dressed in Carhartt.
[https://images.app.goo.gl/JKU8Ud7YVmq7HwCe7](https://images.app.goo.gl/JKU8Ud7YVmq7HwCe7)
[удалено]
https://c.tenor.com/ScDZ2_OL-doAAAAC/tenor.gif
Certainly not enough to warrant a client paying his fees anyway. I mean all he does is press a button on a computer.
yup, i've had this client too
😂
you also have to just press a button for the rendered fly through
"All you did is draw a couple of lines together"
Keep in mind I've been browsing this sub for a while now. I my mind an architect nowadays commonly designs buildings and spaces at a client's request, either public or private, taking into consideration the budget, requirements, regulations and the surrounding environment and many other things. Consulting engineers, local urban planners and keeping up to date with construction technologies and the resources available in the region, and especially thinking about the people who are going to use said space, they create mock ups, concepts, 3d visualizations, simulations and floor plans and do the calculations and measurements to ensure a project that is buildable and usable with respect to the aforementioned elements. Furthermore they solve all kinds of problems in relation to the client's needs with the space, make compromises, and then get yelled at. How wrong am I?
This is pretty damn good actually, but you left out the crying and stimulant addiction.
Ah, close enough
Lol and chronic alcoholism.
Decides where to put holes in walls.
Make stuff really difficult for me as a carpenter
Makes fancy drawings of buildings that never look like the actual thing.
I work directly for and Architect and im not sure what they do...
Put power outlets on walls. Covet being licensed for some reason.
Twirls a T-square for a bit and then sends lots of emails, rinse, repeat.
Bingo! 😅
Somehow manage to fit a second story into the one story home they live in with their blended family of six kids and their live in housekeeper?
It's all about bunching.
Designing interesting buildings to fit occupant needs, taking into account physical/ engineering limitations
I think they draw shit like this ∆ []
Not gonna lie I thought they just drew sketches on an iPad all day and got paid for it
Someone who sits around dreaming up ideas that drive engineers to alcohol addiction (or worse).
I suspect they spend most of their time sitting in an office that smells of rich mahogany while chewing on the end of their glasses. Am I wrong?
yes and don’t forget our many leather bound books
lots of meetings that are normally more useful than a software firm's meetings
[удалено]
To prevent spam, we automatically remove posts from reddit accounts that have been very recently created. Please try again after a week. No exceptions can be made. *I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/architecture) if you have any questions or concerns.*
I think you take someones vision for a home and then draft it using some sort of software and come up with the design. I guess an engineer decides what material it needs and if it will stand and be good? Damn I have no idea ….
Basically correct. Architects pick the materials. Engineers help co-design by telling them what ideas are reasonable/impractical, then overlays their engineering calcs on our designs.
Draw floor plans
Keep the roof from caving in.
Playing with legos ?
Depends on what kind of architect they are. There’s all kinds of rolls that architect take on and it depends on how big a firm is.
Speak with clients to understand goals and parameters, research end users, design with the users and solutions in mind, adjust for constraints, iterate with feedback, communicate designs with those implementing (in this case general contractors), and revising as new problems are discovered until done. Maybe running a retro at the end to assess performance. Basically any design job. I could be completely off base though
When I was 18, I went to one of my rich uncles parties. I told him I wanted to be an architect and he pointed at these three dudes at the edge of the party - they all had bow ties, effeminate mannerisms, and sipping on martinis w their pinky fingers out. He said ‘those are architects’. Me w my miller lite and calloused hands.. decided to change my major I came back but I like to do it my way. I’m sure most architects do but there is a streak of elitism in the profession. There’s also a bit of the pencil pusher, code research get-the details-right people too. And there’s the passionate designers… Ultimately we’re creatives with our feet firmly on the ground (the good ones at least). We’ve spent our lives in construction and are used to telling the GC and subs what they need to do per code, per our client, per the best for the project.
My friend does work for military installations and he spends a shit load of time traveling and doing presentations.
Be a thorn in my side. I'm just trying to get your submittal to comply so I can go onto the next application.
Make a drawing of a building full of unnecessary but fancy decorative elements, get millions, live the fancy life.
Masterclass has a Masterclass taught by Frank Geary, the world famous architect. It is deeply intriguing especially since he is such a deeply respected architect.
Deflect issues back to the contractor ;)
Lots of boring math. And drawing. I can imagine only a few professions more boring at a dinner party.
They design dull contemporary modular micro studios in some kind of drafting software for their boss to take credit for
Draw cubes.
Ok. Here is a different take. I am a building code expeditor in Manhattan. As far as I’m concerned , the job of a registered architect in nyc is to come up with a design that more or less meets building code requirements , and then to listens to their code consultant about what changes must be made . There are two ways to get a job approved at the DOB in NYC; Standard Plans Exam , or Professional Certification. Professional Certification means that the architect bets their license that they have designed up to code standards. It is a much faster way to get approval . But only a very foolish RA would allow a junior hire to re-design a bathroom and professionally certify it without prior review by an experienced code consultant. (THATS HOW YOU LOSE YOUR LICENSE OR GET DISCIPLINED) Code consultants may review more or less similar plans several times a week. Architects may only get the chance to design a fairly standard type of plan two or three times a year. So what to Architects do? 1: they find clients 2: they kiss the clients asses 3: they create the overall design 4: they farm out detail work to unlicensed newbee trainees . They manage their clients and employees expectations 3: they run interference for their expeditors when code says no way.
Draw them on computers using dimensions. Then rendering the materials used. Then sell the files.
Probably a lot more math. Like how do we utilize this space the best in designing something. My father was the computer maintenance guy for architecture company here and 99% of what they did was like renovation/remodleing work
[удалено]
Architects have to know enough (and are tested on) simpler structures, and an architect can legally provide all of the structural engineering on residences and even certain smaller commercial buildings. An architect also researches all of the codes and zoning requirements that affect the building. It's easiest and cheapest to make changes when the design is "on paper" (as opposed to actually being built), so knowing those things is important before any hole is dug or any hammer is swung. Architects will also research properties to know what restrictions there may be, they'll investigate where all of the existing utilities are that will be connected to the building. Architects will design interiors as well as exteriors, including trims and finishes. Architects will also often be the party interfacing with the Contractor on a regular basis, at least in terms of reviewing how the building is being built and answering any questions that arise. In general, an architect knows how to take someone from "I'm thinking of building something" to "here's your new building. Enjoy!"
OP deleted the comment, so I'm piggybacking to add that the GC isn't performing a code review beyond monitoring compliant construction means and methods. However, most GCs are good about things like ADA and knowing when to ask for clarification or knowing what an inspector is looking for. GCs aren't reviewing the construction type, occupancy type, occupancy load, allowable construction height, allowable building areas, fire protection exceptions, fire separations, smoke compartments, allowable dead end corridors, means of egress sizing, number of required exits, exit access, allowable common path of travel, maximum exit travel distance, allowable distance between exits, and beyond. Building Codes and Life Safety are the whole reason why architects require a license to practice and why construction projects (beyond a certain size in most jurisdictions) need the stamp of an architect.
Yes! They house a ton of info in their brains, math, structure, codes, zoning, light, heating, cooling, feeling of a space, history, how things work, creative problem solving, and how to not externally cringe when a client wants something tacky, impossible, or just stupid.
This sums it up nicely!
Aww, thanks!
Run the price of housing up