The drawings are more for the regulators such as building control than actually for the people working on site.
Talking to the constructors it is normal for architects to specify the impossible, leaving it to the constructor to actually make it up on the job.
Somebody said to me that over 30% of construction costs is waste.
It looks like there is an opportunity to implement lean methods in construction. And weirdly implement Alexander’s ideas patterns and anti patterns.
It would also depend on the architect, primary contractor, and what kind of relationship they have. Sometimes plans are just thrown over the wall, but other times there is more collaboration.
I watch the YouTube channel of Matt Risinger, a building science focused contractor in Austin, Texas, and he seems talk with architects a lot (and they supposedly make up a good portion of his viewing audience). He regularly features Steve Baczek for example, on both his main channel and the 'secondary' Build Show Network, and latter does get into the details of the building process:
* https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XwDhSCV3ixQ
> Talking to the constructors it is normal for architects to specify the impossible, leaving it to the constructor to actually make it up on the job.
Baczek shows some plan details:
* https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FUpkDi-QD2E
Both Risinger and Baczek subscribe to trying to achieve the 'perfect wall' on the outside:
* https://www.buildingscience.com/documents/insights/bsi-001-t...
Sure, that doesn't mean there will be no problems whatsoever. (Plus there's always a difference between the as-planned and as-built plans, but at this size of project most of the differences have to be approved by various domain experts.) ... which again, doesn't mean there will be no problems.
Especially considering that these ultra-skinny super-tall high-rises use new/innovative/different methods and trade offs for some engineering challenges.
Context: I'm assuming Alexander here refers to Christopher Alexander. He has authored books related to identifying architecture patterns with 'liveness' in them, from the very small to the big scale. I think a lot of his ideas can be applied to software too and even really matches up with Extreme Programming. I recommend reading The Nature of Order for the fundamentals of his ideas and how it fits with the world. I'll refer to him as CA in this comment.
I think it's the overspecialisation of roles and the 'waterfall' aspect of the engineering that normalises this. The architect don't (or can't) verify whether their designs work along the way. CA once described a story where he needs a constant feedback with the soil engineer for the start of the project but his request is denied by the client. The client wants the engineer to start and finish his survey first and then for CA to receive the reports only. CA ended up declining to work with the client due to that. As with Software Engineering/Development, there are questions that only surfaces when we do a part of the building, and can't be predicted. This is why the continuous feedback is important. I'm not sure whether the architect in your case _can_ come back to the site and direct the constructors against the drawings, even if the later directions are more suitable to build.
It's a bit weird that now we're taking missed plans as the default, when the Empire State Building (and NYC skyscrapers of the time) ran ahead of their schedule, with Lean principles by focusing on constraints and workflow instead of planning the minute details: https://chrisgagne.com/1255/mary-poppendiecks-the-tyranny-of...
I'm afraid that a lot of churn in Software Development also comes from a similar overspecialisation, overplanning, and the wrong kind of feedback loops. 30% of costs wasted seems like the better end for software. The difference is that building physical buildings has happened for thousands of years and there is a lot of history to compare with the current day. Software has at most 100 years of history, and currently it's still very much the wild west and every team is trying to stumble upon a process that is sustainable. This doesn't even count that a lot of developers see themselves and the job differently, and the organization also sees the Tech/Engineering team differently.
This comment is more of a rambling than a coherent thought, but I thought I'd get it out there. I'm sure I'm not the only one feeling like the current Software Development process is a mess. There has been good efforts (Extreme Programming and agile, not branded Agile) and current good effort (Basecamp's evangelism of their work process and the Shape Up book) to carve a sane way, but it needs to be the normal practice instead of the contrarian view/practice.
Reportedly his book A Pattern Language inspired the GoF software patterns book.
[0]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Design_pattern [1]: https://www.martinfowler.com/articles/writingPatterns.html#A...
If the drawings are indeed for regulators, then architects should be sued when they prove to be impossible impossible. Failing that, we should get rid of architects to begin with (if they draw impossible things, what good are they?), and have actual engineers draw something that can actually be built. (Of course, the engineer should risk a lawsuit if something goes wrong).
Basically, the architects plans were used as a basis to work from during construction. Luckily we had people able to do so. As our engineer put it: architects "paint" houses, the actual drawings and design to turn into something you can build is done by engineers.
Both, architects and engineers are liable for their designs so over here. Reason why the stamp is so important and expensive, you need quite a pricey insurance for that.
That's the problem I was trying to point at: you need to pay someone useless for the sake of bureaucracy. How is this not insane?
> Both, architects and engineers are liable for their designs so over here. Reason why the stamp is so important and expensive, you need quite a pricey insurance for that.
Ah, insurance: the reason why they're allowed to suck, and still be in business. That's not right. If the design is wrong, and it has consequences, whoever approved it should be personally liable for it, at least to a significant extent. A sufficiently serious blunder should bar them from approving designing buildings, or at least approving building designs, ever again. As should repeat offences.
Perhaps that's already the case, but the anecdotal evidence I amassed thus far (in France) doesn't isn't encouraging.
And are you claiming that insurance should not be permitted? If so, that seems... Silly. People make mistakes. If a single mistake has the potential to ruin your entire livelihood, you'll quickly find that you're lacking anyone willing to put on their stamp without putting up enough money to cover all the liability. That is, instead of them pooling together to get liability insurance, each individual will instead have to pass on those costs to their customers.
I'm saying insurances should probably be limited. So there'd be some cost of doing mistakes. Ideally it wouldn't be crippling if one makes a mistake here and there, but repeated negligence would drive one out of business. I expect this would drive the price of insurance down, and the salary of the engineer up. Hopefully this evens out for the customer.
Alternatively, let the insurances cover everything, but if one makes too many mistakes (or a very serious enough one), then they would lose their right to vet designs at all.
I don't think this back and forth is what happens between architects and contractors. Contractors are not paid to produce knowledge, and they have no incentive to better conform to regulations. So I expect the convergence between architects and contractors is very slow.
I don't think the solution is to regulate architects more, but rather to create a system where contractors actively provide feedback, so that processes can be iterated upon.
> I don't think the solution is to regulate architects more, but rather to create a system where contracts actively provide feedback, so that processes can be iterated upon.
I really recommend Christopher Alexander's work to you because of these views. He explores how past buildings have managed to be built and how the architect <-> contractor feedback loop can be effective.
It's not quite the same though. You are operating in uncharted waters and writing the rules with a feedback loop between theoretical and experimental. But the only bounds are what can practically be achieved given today's technological limits and understanding. Whatever both groups are working on, it stays between those 2 groups of experts.
In civil engineering you add a thick layer of regulation. Because what the architect theorizes about, and what the engineer ends up building will be directly populated or operated by the general population. An architect delivering something that isn't actionable as-is or an engineer implementing approximations that don't do the job will sit somewhere between worthless, fraudulent, and maybe even to criminal.
The engineers put a note in the drawing that basically tells the contractor to overrule their drawing if it isn't up to building code. Somehow this lets them wash their hands of liability if the contractor builds to specifications that don't meet building code.
Does that mean we'd suddenly have a serious lack of engineer? Perhaps. That's only true to the extent that we already lack capable engineers now. It'd just be more visible.
I for one would like to be liable for my programming work (at least the part for which I'm paid). I could at least say to my boss "sorry, I can't risk approving that, we need more tests/refactoring for such and such part for such and such reason".
Most of MEP work is laying out pipes and wires so that the fixtures such as airvents, electric sockets and so on get connected to the system. The MEP contractor's task (overly simplifying) is to punch holes into walls and drag their spans of pipes and whatnot through them.
The designs' intent is to specify the fixtures, and how the perform (airflow etc). The subcontractor basically promises that they make those fixtures do their job - and not that their wiring and whatnot follows any specific plan necessarily.
Modern digital workflows are getting slowly integrated to the process and they may improve the productivity and quality in long term.
It's not legal.
I work in an industry that monitors such things and recommends Banks/Lenders not pay if/when these discrepancies arise (Construction Risk Management).
The appropriate party will make revisions and then prove that that change won't affect the overall project.
> Let alone technically possible?
On larger projects, Subcontractors of Subcontractors of Subcontractors can become lazy, use materials not rated for their intended use, someone doesn't double check it since they're lazy, clicks a checkbox and calls it done; out of sight out of mind.
> How does construction of these monsters work?
Preconstruction Due Diligence, Funding via Banks, Approval/Contract Signing, Mobilization to Site, Construction of Building, Final Inspections & Warranties transfered, a Certificate of Occupancy issued, and people move in.
With mega projects, you have so many moving parts that something will fall through the cracks. Some material got substituted, the pent house staircase dimensions are 2-inches off creating a variance approval, but that dimension now affects the elevator machine room, they used Cast Iron Pipe on Floors 1-10 then PVC at 11-40 and there's issues at the different pipe connections; it just cascades. This is the main reason I also work in Building Information Modeling (BIM) to mitigate such problems.
The whole point of my industry is to act as a third party between the Developer & Bank/Lender, opine on the Preconstruction Documents (Contracts, Geotech, Budget, Schedule), document the Construction each month via photos, attend Meetings, review the application for payment, and flag the bank when something changes (No Energy Star appliances suddenly? Variance? Certain brand of vinyl flooring stock low so substitute it with vinyl tile? Change Orders about to deplete the Contingency?)
It becomes such an undertaking after a certain budget size or apartment unit amount. Eventually, people get stretched thing or get lazy, they're over budget, they've gone way past their scheduled completion date and just don't care since their next project is starting up and Permits are taking way longer to get; just happens.
Hope this gives a little perspective.
That wouldn't help with someone getting the dimensions wrong on a staircase, but it could catch things like a contractor wanting to use the wrong kind of pipe of floor material or appliance.
I'm not the right kind of engineer to hazard a guess as to whether this is an unusually high variance for this scale of project. We also don't know what "failed to conform" means - the language is as vague as, given the ubiquity of changes at build time, intentionally pejorative. There's really not enough here to judge either the architect or the contractor; it could be a brilliant design badly implemented, or it could be a terrible design the contractor did their best to make work, and no one here or in the NYT article, including its writer, has enough information to say which.
This kind of 'normalization of deviance' is normal in normal construction, but has to be either reworked or formally normalized in critical work.
The workers would almost always try to assemble the devices as fast as possible, cutting corners here and there.
Why? Seems pretty standard construction, and unusual that something so common is "incredibly stupid"
More generally, what often happens with big projects like this is the design team is not connected with the contractors that build the job. The reason why this happens is because early in the design stage when you speak to a main contractor you don’t get to talk to the actual subcontractors that will build the thing, you are essentially speaking to the salesmen that will eventually get their buying guys to hire subcontractors to do the actual work. If they are brought on early then Contractors typically find ways to use proprietary lock in and cost ratcheting techniques to increase the cost of a build once they have secured the job so to avoid this a fairly common setup for a building of this size is for a design team to prepare drawings and a performance specification to a level of detail that gets you regulatory compliance, but not a full nuts and bolts design with buildability assessed. This is not just the architectural design but also the structures, M&E, security, landscape etc. So, for example, the electrical design might be a block diagram and the loads, but the bus bars might not be sized and the suppliers for all the switchgear wont be selected. At pinch points there may be a more detailed reference design.
At this point there will be a design build contract made between the contractor and the client based on the partially complete design. This design gets handed over to the contractor to complete and the contractor’s engineers take over and complete the details. Sometimes some of the original design team gets novated from the client to the contractor, quite often only the architects but you have to be really sharp in your negotiations if you do this because once they have you hooked there will be huge time and cost pressure to complete the designs for less fees and to find ways to save money.
A rule of thumb I use is that on a A1 sheet’s worth of information takes about 1 person week to complete when you include all the research. Often with consultations with other specialists this work will be stretched over a couple of months. On a big project there will be 10s of thousands of drawings in play. This can’t be rushed if you don’t want any mistakes, but it almost always is and if you are an engineer or an architect working for the contractor at this point there is huge pressure to cut corners. Non-famous architects and engineers are actually not very well paid compared to other professionals and we tend to work very long unpaid hours with workers rights laws regularly flouted, e.g. firing pregnant women etc.
Another issue is that there is corruption in the buying department of the main contractor as well, they have gold watches and get taken on days out to go and ‘bet on horse racing’ by the subcontractors.
So the contractor’s incentive to cut costs and corruption cause a lot of last minute design changes to use a ‘preferred supplier’ or to reduce complexity or use cheaper materials. When coupled with the time pressure, things go wrong.
Everyone will say, ‘oh you architects should design everything properly down to the last detail, there should be PLM models like the aircraft industry’ but the fact is every building is a prototype, a building this large has a much higher margin of safety but it is as complicated as an airliner and airliners cost a lot more money to develop than buildings. No-one is willing to pay for the time input, they would rather let the contractor bodge it on site, often contractors will end up using the reference designs and filling the details themselves on site, e.g. using drawings never intended to be construction information.
Another one is ‘well then you should use more standardisation’ from personal experience in trying to make my own business more profitable, you can try to standardise construction details but there are a lot of high level client influenced design decisions that ripple right through a building down to the 1:2 construction details so this only works up to a point. I’ve managed to break my details down into reusable components, but I’ve not managed to literally reuse the same drawings for multiple projects.
As we’ve seen with the 737 Max debacle the airline industry is not immune from these kind of mistakes, I think ultimately the problem is probably more with project management and construction contracting culture than it is with ‘the Architects are hand wavy artists’ (we’re mostly not)
How is that even legal? Let alone technically possible? How does construction of these monsters work? "Yo, Bert, I need some 5x5 high-elastic steel framing for the 72th floor!" "Sorry man, we ran out of that when we 'redesigned' the elevator shaft, how about you take this plywood we should have used for the 68th floor?"