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".
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).