Letters

Editor's note: Numerous recipients of our electronic newsletter responded to Senior Editor Larry Flynn's coverage of the U.S. Green Building Conference in Denver. To view these reports, go to www.bdcmag.com and click "E-newsletters" on the tool bar.

I agree with Peter Pfeiffer that it is important for architects to understand building science. [Pfeiffer, a principal of Barley & Pfeiffer Architects, said in the USGBC report that he felt architects would benefit from working for a contractor for some time, as he had done for four years. "Good design has to be married to good building science," he said.]

I started working in the field in 1969. I was registered in 1980. I spent a lot of time working in construction as well as being on site, as an assistant to the Clerk of the Works.

It was truly amazing to see how the architect's details were actually constructed. I realized that the details were not just lines on paper. They had to relate to what a mechanic could actually construct, using the materials required. There is no such thing as a truly straight line: a joint of 1/32-in. was not possible, even though I could detail it.

An architect puts himself into his designs by understanding the client's needs, understanding what it is he must accomplish. Why is it so hard for an architect to imagine himself building this building? How will that board be secured? How will that brick be fit in to that very tiny space? How will those four pipes get through the upper floors to the roof? How will those custom cabinets be set on an uneven concrete floor? How will I caulk the varying width joint between the window and the masonry wall? What will it really look like?

Granted, for enough money, anything can be made almost perfect. But in the real world that I work in, there is not that much money.

Now with the advent of CADD, I see more details that are drawn by an architect, where it appears that he was more interested in a pretty picture, than what he wanted built. This causes all kinds of problems on-site. Not to mention expenses and embarrassment to the architect.

Another pet peeve of mine, in my present job: One of my many tasks is to review construction drawings. The lack of information, specific information, is incredible. I have spoken with a few of the architects and they say that the contractor will know what to do. I question them on how they know this and will they accept whatever it is the contractor "knows"? The look of consternation, or frustration with me, is not pleasant.

It doesn't take a lot more time to put all the necessary information down, than to leave it off. Factor in the aggravation and potential expense once construction starts, and it is definitely not worth having not done it correctly when you had the chance.

Thank you for listening to Mr. Pfeiffer and realizing that what he said was, indeed, very important.

Mark Hirsch, R.A., NCARB, Development Cost Analyst Connecticut Housing Finance Authority, Rocky Hill, Conn.

Your coverage and e-mails are fantastic, and I've been looking forward to receiving them for the past few days.

Even though the e-mails are brief, I always click on the links to get more info.

I wish I could have been there. Maybe next year.

Robert Kocher, Mackay & Somps Pleasanton, Calif.

I appreciate your short, concise, informative reports from the IGBC. We are planning a new laboratory here, so I'm saving your reports for review and reference later when we get to conceptual design.

Jerry McCarthy, Senior Project Engineer Idaho National Engineering & Environmental Laboratory, U.S. Department of Energy Idaho Falls

I hope your excellent and informative reporting from Austin (Texas) encourages evolution of the building industry into the twenty-first century.

David Warren, Construction Management Specialist Newark (N.J.) Public Schools

An item in our December issue (Reader Service 306) described Timely Industries' steel door frames as "pre-assembled." They are "prefinished." We regret the error.

In "Big names on campus" (BD&C, December, p. 44), we incorrectly implied that Stephen Shrake, manager of Design & Construction for Eastern Illinois University, had knowledge of the fees of various firms bidding on a fine-arts center at the university, which, if true, would have violated the state's Quality-Based Selection law. In fact, this was not the case at all. The fee negotiation was performed by the Capital Development Board, another state agency. Shrake, in fact, had no advance knowledge of any architectural fees from the winning team until after the final selection.