Posted by Sunaabh on March 07, 2003 at 10:04:21:
For the smaller projects, like residences etc etc, many feel that If one has to build, one should go to a building contractor rather than visit an architect. Planning is no more a specialised domain. After all, its ones own space and one will design it to ones own functional requirements. And, Information on building regulation etc is easily available from local Controll Authorities.
Did you say who then will advise on the structural plannings, quantities and estimates etc etc...? If you feel this is what makes the Architects and engineers indispensible, you are mistaken my friend, the [recomended]contrator knows all about that and what to do, much more "economically", and "faster" than most of what you may have suggested to your clients. In short, going to the contractor means, faster economical solutions, lesser paperworks, lesser hasseles about what can be done and what cannot be done, purely functional designs and no flights of fancy and above all saving a packet in terms of professional design fees for something that had to be what it is [so whats the big deal in it?].
So where does the architect come to the picture? Why spend ones hard earned money and valuable time disscussing issues and schemes that may be asthetically or conceptually valuable but, practically nonsense when when confronted with the lucrative economics for the project as presented by a building contractor?
Is architecture losing its shine? Is only the WTC, the Petronas and its likes the only defination of Architecture? Or shall the Architects continue to be blackmailed in the trade from within?
What can we do to drive home the message that Architecture is not merely "building cosmetics", in societies that can hardly differentiate between Archeology and Architecture?
Types & Styles
Library Places Building Photos Free 3D Models Archiplanet