Death to the Blithering Idiots

**bitingmidge** · 14th April 2004, 10:00 PM

In another thread and in response to a mass castigation of the views of apparently all except for Biting Midge and Sir Stinkalot

, Journeyman Mick wrote many wise and wondrous things.

Of course, unable to admit that Mick has a bloody good point in almost every sentence, and in attempt to continue in perhaps a lighter hearted vain, Biting Midge felt obligated to respond in the interest of continued debate and to further the quest to exterminate incompetence in all things except spelling.

No offence intended at all below (except as outlined by Mick), and none taken from previous posts!

I asked the architect who the project manager was when I started noticing all these defects and she informed me that there was none

So the buildingwork was illegal, not carried out by a licenced contractor? The blind leading the blind perhaps?

and she was carrying out the "traditional" architects role of supervising (..snip....) she should have picked up at least one of the 150 or so defects that I managed to find and document in 3 hours.

Let's face it, she was a dead-set dud. Refer my other kind (not necessarily gender specific) remarks about some members of the profession not being able to cut it. The fact that she even referred to "supervision" tells me that she did not understand what she was doing and was incapable of carrying out the role! Sackable offence in my day I'm afraid!!! But that was before all this HR stuff.......

As far as aesthetics being the preserve of "anyone else who has at least six years of tertiary design training, and at least a lifetime of ongoing education!" I disagree. Aesthetics can be nurtured and developed but can't be taught, if the person has no sense of aesthetics to start with then 6 yrs of uni and a lifetime of study will still see that person producing tripe.

I agree entirely....however I am sure you will also agree that many of those persons who have no sense of aesthetics (whatever "aesthetics" is) to start with, AND who have no education become the most outspoken judges of what does and does not constitute "art". IMHO all are qualified to make comment, few are qualified to judge. (The exceptions being the perpetrators of Stinky's favourite mock Georgian monstrosity or the nearly ubiquitous Tuscan Manor anywhere other than Tuscany, where to my knowledge "Manor" is not a term used in connection with "nice homes" anyway. Our marketing gurus and imbecillic acceptance of whatever is in advertising material will ensure that there is never any "design" education for the masses! They will never know the pleasure of just looking at a fine timber joint (there's the woodworking content!).

Architecture is partly an art form (a look at Frank Lloyd Wright's or Antonio Gaudi's work will confirm this) albeit one that is tied to a discipline/industry (building) which is literally earth bound. However like most artists in any discipline nowadays they've lost sight of the fact that they are producing for an end user and shouldn't be having a self indulgent w@nk.
Conceptual artists who place a putrid decaying cows carcasse in a gallery, chefs that produce "nouvelle cuisine" creations that consist of a few "artfully arranged design elements" ( 3 bites of steak and a few vegetable "flowers" with a swirl of gravy) on a huge plate, and architects who design buildings with no regard for climate, orientation or the actual use of the spaces inside, but simply see it as a 3 dimensional advertisement for their design sense have all lost sight of what they are paid to do.

Now we are getting to the bottom of it...no self indulgent playing with ones extremeties......... but where do we stop? No more hundreds and thousands on the kiddies Ice cream because it doesn't add to the flavour?
Some architects undoubtedly ...ahem....push the pain barrier along the lines you have described. Most are struggling to document prisons, shopping centres and blocks of flats within budgets which don't allow them the indulgence of two tone paint!

Surely the self indulgence comes from the clients who commission this stuff, and the architect so commissioned becomes the vehicle by which the client can get his jollys? The Sydney Opera House, Parliament House Canberra, Guggenhiem Museum and numbers of other buildings don't truly reflect externally the form of the interior function yet reasonably acclaimed by all but the bitchy critics?

Not all of these expressions work. Not everyone has to like everything. Unfortunately buildings are a bit more visible than other art pieces and therefore are a little harder to hide.

Forget the major "artpieces", I have no cornices in my house. A small statement perhaps, but one which makes my 2400 ceilings in what was a 1980's brick box appear higher.

I get just a little peeved with having to justify this apparent w@nk with a 17 year old plasterer, his foreman, his manager, then the owner of the company! I am happy to pay for the result I want, but it takes four stand up fights to achieve. THEN, the bastards are so pleased with THEIR work, they come back after it's finished to take photographs for their brochure!! Just a daily occurence on the other side of the fence!

The reality is that with modern technology, ANYONE can be a draftsman, not anyone can produce a pleasing form.

A building, in general is first and foremost a space with a purpose or several purposes, not a huge outdoor sculpture. If an architect can't or won't design something that meets the client's needs they should give up architecture and try to make a living as a sculptor instead. Only they don't as it's much harder to get money out of the Arts Council than some mug who has a lot of money and an even less well developed aesthetic sense than the architect.

I differ a little here. A building IS indeed a space with a purpose (not always first and formost) but whether you like it or not, it is also inevitably a huge outdoor sculpture. A barn with nasty proportions looks like an ugly barn, a barn with better proportions is still a barn, but at least it is less displeasing to the eye.

If buildings were not sculpture, places for individual expression we would all be living in externally identical sheds, coloured identically.

Public buildings in particular are intended to convey a sense of presence. Check out the Pyramids! A high court should look and feel and be identifiable to the observer as a high court building not a KFC outlet (shudder). Whether the form is what is expected or not, it is still a sculptural one.

As for making a living out of sculpture...well in Queensland by legislation EVERY Government building MUST have 2.5% of the contract sum spent on "Public Artwork" within it. Any blithering idiot could make a living here, providing they can work the system, and it can't be any harder than applying for the dole!!!

And before you and Stinky and any other architects think I've got it in for architects, that's not the case. I simply can't abide any professional (and I'm using professional in the sense of someone who does something for money) doing poor work. I've seen doctors, tradesmen, restauranteurs, teachers and machinery operators who were all either incapable or unwilling to do good work, and frankly, it's inexcusable.
Anyway, that's the end of my rave.
(No offence meant to anyone other than the blithering idiots of the world)

HEAR HEAR!! (Hope to hear more of your rave in due course!)

All I can add to that is that I've also seen doctors, tradesmen, restauranteurs, teachers and machinery operators who were all either incapable or unwilling to do good work AND YET WERE THE FIRST TO BLAME THE ARCHITECT OR PASS JUDGEMENT ON SOME MATTER OF HIGH ART!!

Perhaps it was the restauranter that supplied the Cow Carcass in the first place?

DEATH TO THE BLITHERING IDIOTS!!

Off to take my new medication now....
Cheers,
P

**journeyman Mick** · 14th April 2004, 11:39 PM

Go Biting Midge!

I won't go over all the old ground again, like I said I haven't worked on commercial sites often enough to understand exactly who is responsible for what (personally I always feel responsible for everything I work on and anything connected to it - that's why I bought up all the defects), and like you said, she was/is a dud.

Re the cornice-less wall/ceiling junction. Did you do it just for the extra height visual effect or is this really an in look at the moment? Sorry, not implying that you are driven by fads, I'm sure that, as an architect you know what you like. It's just that I worked on an architects house a few years ago and there was no cornice. It is a nice clean look, but it's a bugger for the plasterers. The plasterers were complaining that it was so well recieved that it was to be incorporated into a lot of future work. I don't really have a problem with any of these less ordinary design details that architects want, what bothers me is if they don't understand why the cornice was there in the first place and what sort of impact (more labour cost) deleting it will have. I think that's my real problem with architects, most of them understand next to nothing about the actual nuts and bolts of building. I guess the architects arguement would be that they provide the concept and the vision and the engineers, builders and trades make it a reality.

I saw part of a documentary on the Federation square project and one of the architects actually made a statement to the effect of "the builder and contractors treat me like a naughty child that must be kept away from the cookie jar" referring to them trying to change details and specs to easier, cheaper options. From what I saw of the program almost every detail of the project seemed to be the most difficult, expensive option, with little visual advantage over a perhaps easier and cheaper option. Yes, they had a vision, but there was a budget. In the end a lot of stuff was scaled right back to try to control the cost blow outs. It seems to me that perhaps if they had been willing to compromise somewhat on the details more of the large scale components of the design would have stayed intact.

I'm currently doing some renovation work for a single mum with a very limited budget. She's told me what she wants and I've tried to give her options that will fit into her budget. Like rather than put new tops on her kitchen, I suggested she might want to leave it as is (less work and money for me) inorder to get more pressing things done, and replace the kitchen further down the track when she can afford it. She's gone with this as she was hoping to have a new kitchen in a few years time anyway. I know I've made her happy and I will in all probability get all her work from now on. Rather than putting my short term gain first, I've worked at getting the best outcome for the client. I'm trying to balance what I want (enjoyable and profitable work) with the clients needs. Maybe I'm just hopelessly out of touch but I just don't see architects (at least the ones I've seen in action) paying more than lip service to the clients needs. And I know that many trades are guilty of this too, however I know a few like minded individuals in various trades, oddly enough we always have plenty of work, even when things are quiet.

Mick

**Sturdee** · 15th April 2004, 12:15 AM

My only experience with an Architect was when the Club I was working for extended and renovated and modernised the club house. Cost of the project $ 1.25M and the builder who build it said it would have cost $ 1M if the whole lot was buldozed and started from scratch. But hey who queries the Architect.

However the best bit (if you ignore things like no stop taps in the hot and cold water supplies to isolate the kitchen area and bar areas or the locker rooms from the course and the fact that the kitchen floor was 80mm higher than the dining room amongst others) was that in designing the office complex they placed my workstation in front of a structural post and the seat behind it so that I would have to hug the post to reach my computer ( cost of variation $ 15K) and the return air for the heating/cooling was placed outside the office complex in the foyer. When queried the Architect advised the committee that in order to save cost, rather than fixing it, we keep the office door open at all times.

Mind you it was not the Architect that was stupid because his fee is based on the value of the work, thus the more expensive the more moolah for him, but the Club's committee who listened to him rather than the staff when these stupidities were pointed out in the design stage but still did nothing about it.

Peter.

**Robert WA** · 15th April 2004, 12:46 AM

Every profession has its duds, but they are not all duds.

Our house was designed by an architect to our specifications as to space and in consultation with the builder of our choice. He came up with a concept that really works and achieved all of our goals. Even the builder was impressed and has since used components of the design, with the architects consent, in other houses.

All that and the whole exercise came in on budget, including the architects fee.

One enormous blue though ..... The workshop is too small. He should have told me that I needed twice as much space.

**silentC** · 15th April 2004, 10:12 AM

I can tell from the bewildered looks on the faces of my across-the-street neighbours that they're not certain how and where it all went so horribly wrong. We're just trying to get ourselves used to the idea of looking across the road at a large, flat, featureless orange box attached to the back of a teal hardiplank wonder that looks as though something very heavy has fallen on the roof.

As a matter of fact, I think that architects should have to consult with the neighbours as well. After all, our neighbours only have to look at it when they are coming home - we see it every time we look out the window.

On the bright side, it does obscure the box next door to it. The box was 'designed' by one of our local architects, who has a reputation for being a bit 'different'. Different in that whilst his brethren design lovely houses with classic or modern lines, he designs ugly, ridiculous boxes. It's not even original - there are another couple of them here that were built back in the 80's. All the same: parapet walls obscuring the roof line; clad with ship-lapped cedar; loathed by all but those who sail in them.

The difference between art and architecture is that, on commissioning a painting or a sculpture, if you decide you don't like it, you can throw it away, melt it down, or burn it. What do you do if your house is a failed artistic experiment?

**bitingmidge** · 15th April 2004, 12:28 PM

What do you do if your house is a failed artistic experiment?

The really sad part of this whole debate, is that owners of failed experiments rarely see them as such. It's a genetic device which is to blame, the one that makes you love your own kids despite their ....ummm.....shortcomings in the eyes of the world.

What will happen is quite predictable

The value will not quite keep up with the rest of the street, eventually the owners will sell to enable them to inflict their exquisite taste on another unsuspecting neighbourhood, who will once again hear the words that bring terror to my soul "We designed it ourselves and Charlene picked the colours!"

Eventually someone will pick up a bargain and tastefullly renovate it.

The transformation will be amazing, and everyone will be awstruck at the value it has added to the locale. Actually the value will be what it could have been in the first place, but you will all be grateful and happy none the less.

Oh...I just LOVE happy endings!!

P

**Sir Stinkalot** · 15th April 2004, 01:19 PM

Originally posted by silentC
As a matter of fact, I think that architects should have to consult with the neighbours as well. After all, our neighbours only have to look at it when they are coming home - we see it every time we look out the window.

Dont go there. Consulting with the neighbours is a real pain in the bum.

**jackiew** · 15th April 2004, 01:55 PM

have to say that once you're in a building it doesn't really matter much what it looks like.

One of life's great mysteries is how architects with all that training can still manage to design buildings which aren't functional for the poor buggers who live and work in them. Don't know how long the training is to be an architect here but its about 7 years in the uk. You'd think somewhere during all of that study they would have to look at a few noddy checklists like

- how do you get your shopping from car to the kitchen
- can the little kids get to the toilet in the middle of the night without walking through the lounge and setting off the burglar alarm or catching mum and dad being adventurous on the carpet
- is the laundry somewhere near where the clothes are going to be hung out
- is the TV point somewhere where you might actually want to put a TV
- is 1 toilet, 4 washbasins and a queuing space one metre square really what women want in the ladies toilets of the theatre/cinema etc ( and if any architects are reading this WOMEN CAN'T P**S IN THE SINKS ... we'd rather have more toilets thanks ).

etc etc

personally I'd rather live in a functional box than somewhere that looked great from the outside but didn't work inside.

**Sir Stinkalot** · 15th April 2004, 02:16 PM

Perhaps the problem is the education of Architects. As a recent graduate I must say that the level of training that was offered by the university that I attended appalled me. To do an architectural degree at my university in Victoria involves the first 3 years doing a bachelor of Arts (architecture) followed by 2 years of a bachelor of architecture, and then 2 years experience as a graduate architect before sitting registration exams.

I was a little different and did a double degree (7 years) of architecture and engineering (environmental). This combined degree incorporated the core subjects necessary for registration for both disciplines. Basically I missed out on many of the ‘filler’ subjects that are included to make up any degree, such as photography etc, but I felt that I have benefited from the practical side of the engineering.

The main focus in the architectural degree was towards the arty side that has been bought into question on this forum. The main subject (studio/design) intended to present the students with a “real” life situation of being given a fictitious brief from a client and producing a response to it. The problem with this approach was the criteria for review from the lecturers and tutors. Top marks were awarded to the buildings that went beyond the realm of reality; a cantilever of a floor some 50 meters with out support was never questioned from a structural point of view. The costs of the structures was never questioned. I cant recall a review where the lecturer went beyond the aesthetics of the building and begun to question the structural soundness or even justify how something could possibly be built.

We shared the campus with the building degree students (ie project management) and shared a few subjects with them. I recall doing three subjects of “structure and structures” with the builders in the early years. These subjects were about as practical as they got, we learnt what a lintel was, a portal frame and a stud wall. As you can imagine it wasn’t really in-depth analysis of the construction industry.

To give you an idea of the quality of staff at the university ….. a graduate the year above mine went through with average quality marks, nothing special. The following year they were unable to find employment within an architectural office. In the second semester of same year they were offered the job of a tutor of one of the first or second year studios. So here is a graduate with no experience, now reviewing and commenting on the work of entry level university students. To me that doesn’t really fill me with confidence thinking about the advice that the students will be given. To become a lecturer, especially of these studio/design classes, its is simply a matter of a few years of tutoring in many cases. Don’t get me wrong, there were lecturers that were well qualified in their discipline, however I think that many begin to loose touch with the real world after a few years in academia.

I am about 18 month into the 2-year graduate architect experience; I work directly under the principle and basically do everything. This practical experience has taught me more in this short time than the 7 years at university. The way that I look at it is that the 5 years in university is simply a test to weed out the numbers of people entering the field rather than a means of filling them with the information required to carry out the job. To improve the quality of architects I feel that there really needs to be a minimum of 6-month experience on site as a tradie and another 6 months in an office environment. The on site experience is essential in gaining an understanding the consequences of what we produce on the computer and how it can be translated into the real world.

Just my little gripe.

**silentC** · 15th April 2004, 02:29 PM

In the software development field, they used to categorise people as either programmers or analysts. When I did my training we tended to find that anyone who showed an apptitude for programming ended up as a programmer, the rest were made analysts. So we had people designing software systems who frankly had no idea about how one was built.

The reasoning behind this was that you did not need to know how to build a system to be able to design one. Needless to say, the analysts ended up being system documentors after the fact.

I've done a bit of drafting myself and I quite enjoy the process but in the back of my mind I was always asking "how will I build this". If you have no experience in construction, how can you know whether or not a design can be implemented? Art may have its place during the conceptualisation of a building but there must be a practical eye very early on to make sure it's not going to be impossible or impractical to build.

**Sir Stinkalot** · 15th April 2004, 02:44 PM

Originally posted by silentC I've done a bit of drafting myself and I quite enjoy the process but in the back of my mind I was always asking "how will I build this". If you have no experience in construction, how can you know whether or not a design can be implemented? Art may have its place during the conceptualisation of a building but there must be a practical eye very early on to make sure it's not going to be impossible or impractical to build.

I think that is they key ..... it is all well and good being adventurous with form but at some stage it has to be bought back to reality and how the thing is to be built. I think that all woodworkers have the same dilemma. A woodworker is basically the designer and builder on a smaller scale. The initial project is fleshed out with whimsical lines and then it progresses to how am I going to achieve this with my skills and tools available?.

Touching back on Federation Square, it is interesting to note that this is the first project that the two architects have had built. Neither of the two were young up and comers so you have to wonder how they could make a living designing stuff that never is built.

**Cliff Rogers** · 15th April 2004, 02:58 PM

G'day.

Hey Mick, can you give me a hint which 'she' it is that you had the 'experience' with?
There are a couple here in Cairns & we know 2 of them....
The 'Minister for Domestic Affairs & Finance' is talking to one of them about some work she wants done on the cubby in the hills.
Initials of name will do or page number in phone book. (Note new or old phone book)
If you don't dare say any more on open forum, send me a private message or an e-mail.
Don't worry that I'll go & tell them, I just want to cover my own hip pocket.
I've already said NO to an offer to 'oversee' all the work for an almost 5digit figure.... the price came down by $3K instantly but I'm still a bit touchy about what the other $5K is for.

I just got 'stung' by a shed builder in Atherton for unforeseen extras. The turkey charged me for the fill under the slab 'cos "it wasn't included in the quote."

**craigb** · 15th April 2004, 04:00 PM

Mr Sir Stinky,

Very intersesting post of yours.

Whatever happened to Sullivan's dictum that "form ever follows function" or don't they teach that anymore ?

Personally, if I was building a new house, and could afford it, I'd definitiley audition an architect.

But before I did that, I'd make sure that I new what their style was one that I felt comfortable with.

Like, it's no good hiring Glenn Murcutt (sp) if you can't stand corrugated iron.

Just to throw my hat in the ring

Craig

**Driver** · 15th April 2004, 04:24 PM

Jeez, I promised myself I wouldn't join in this thread because I had my say when we were supposed to be talking about changing washers on taps.

However, Stinky's description of his experience as a student is worthy of some comment.

Now this is going to make me sound like what I suspect I am gradually becoming: a grumpy old bastard who thinks everything was better when I was a young bloke. :mad: I don't really think that at all but there are some things . . .

Stinky - I wouldn't doubt that what you describe is what actually goes on in modern unis - not just in the architecture faculty either (I saw some stuff my young bloke was reading for his degree course in Media Studies/Journalism: it was so badly written as to be literally indecipherable).

Anyway: back when I was a lad . . . a long time ago . . . and in another place, I trained as a structural engineer. Back then, you could do what was called a sandwich course. This entailed first gaining employment with a company (in my case a business that manufactured and installed steel buildings - big ones: breweries, military structures, nuclear power stations etc) and then attending uni for six-month periods, interspersed with full-time work. I was placed under the care of a senior engineer. He wasn't referred to as a mentor but that's what he was. I was lucky. Gus, the bloke who mentored me was a crusty old Irishman who had seen and done it all. He taught me a helluva lot. (I've just realised that he was probably a bit younger then than I am now - and I've just referred to him as "old" - sh*t!)

One of the things he taught me was what he saw as the design process:

1. Consider the structure's purpose.
2. Imagine how it will look.
3. Sketch it.
4. Imagine how it can be built.
5. Sketch it again if necessary.
6. Re-think the design, trying to make it look better, more elegant, more harmonious (is anyone surprised that an engineer might think this way?)
7. When you think you've got it right, draw it up accurately.
8. Show it to someone who might have to build it.

Several years ago, before I changed careers, I recall reading an article in one of the engineering journals. It advocated a return to the mentor/cadet relationship as a vehicle for improving the training of engineers. As far as I know, this hasn't happened - at least as a formal requirement. Stinky's current experience, working directly to a principal is a similar situation. It would be good to think that more of this could happen - not just in the so-called professions. The journeyman/apprentice system worked well for centuries. (What do you reckon, Mick?)

End of comment.

Col

PS - Craig: Is that Isambard Kingdom Brunel in your avatar?

**craigb** · 15th April 2004, 04:41 PM

PS - Craig: Is that Isambard Kingdom Brunel in your avatar?

Col,

Right on the money!

(I thought it'd take longer to get found out

)

You really must be an "old" engineer.

Cheers
Craig

Thread: Death to the Blithering Idiots

Thread Tools

Search Thread

Death to the Blithering Idiots!

what to do

Stinkies Rave

Tags for this Thread

Posting Permissions