From: Bill Polhemus <bpolhem(--nospam--at)swbell.net>
Date: Tue, 06 Mar 2001 10:14:57 -0600
I have a feeling that he is ignorant of this part. This guy is sort of the "fast
food" variety of architects.
You know, in the town where you live you have nice, staid, conservative
furniture stores, offering high quality furniture at appropriate prices.
Then you have the guy that comes on T.V. and radio every hour on the hour,
screaming about how he's losing his shirt because of the "insane" low, low
prices, blah, blah, blah.
Well, this architect corresponds to the latter.
His clients choose him because he's cheap and will do whatever it takes to get
the plans out and the job built. He's very "no frills". I suspect he has always
chosen his engineers that way, as well. He "fired" his last structural because
the guy never made the schedule, etc. I think he got what he paid for, IMO. The
last structural is reponsible for this design. It is, IMO, at least haphazard,
and at worst a sign of negligence on the part of that engineer.
I think the architect is "upset" because I'm "beefing up" the design past what
the client (a developer/builder) will want to pay for. You know, these are the
sorts of projects where five cents in added cost causes handwringing and
I am almost ready to "fire" this client myself, but I want to do so with a clear
Jim Kestner wrote:
> You might want to ask the Architect where in the building code does it
> allow this approach to be used.