|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Compromise:
The nature of a two architect relationship involves two different sets of
priorities. H&D's primarily revolve around the design, while F&C's
revolve around the efficiency of construction. At times those priorities
would conflict and each firm would have to decide the importance of the detail
and whether it was worth pursuing.
|
Example: glazing details A primary concept in H&D's design is that the park flow into the building. They designed large expanses of glass with no obstructions, an element that they have used in previous work. This involved a detail at the base of the window that is much harder to waterproof than a standard detail where the glazing ends in a raised sill. In order to get their detail approved, H&D first had to get the client onboard from an aesthetic standpoint. They then had to develop the detail, which differs depending on the location in the building. They then had to convince F&C and COFAM that it was functional. They also had to justify the added expense based on the aesthetics. This element was important to them, and they eventually got it approved. |
Communication:
In order to develop the architectural design into a set of buildable
documents while remaining true to the project's design intent, the working
process demands clear and continuous communication. During the design
phases of the project H&D was able to communicate directly with
all the parties involved, but after the beginning of the CD phase, all communication
had to be routed through F&C. F&C's control is neccesary
to ensure that they have a complete knowledge of the all aspects of the construction
documents and so that they can coordinate all the parties to eliminate conflicts
in the drawings. While neccesary, this meant that communication was
sometimes slow and circuitous as it routed through F&C. The integrity
of the design intent and the construction drawings is maintained at the expense
of a timely, efficient workflow.
|
Example: loops of communication --R&C worked directly with Mark Loughnan, Thomas Jacobs, and Chris Haas, part of the design team at H&D on both the building and tower design. Once F&C began the CD set all discussions with H&C and all decisions were coordinated thru F&C. R&C at times had difficulty getting information and dimensions from them that were required to detail their work due to the additional communication and coordination required because of the presence of both a design and prime architect. F&C was required to provide dimensions to R&C but they were being determined by H&D. Additional time is required to get approval. |