[tibbon]

A good architect will be this third party and hold the GC's feet to the fire. The GC might not care about you and repeat business, but they will likely care a lot more about keeping a good architect & firm happier with a decent reputation. Plus, the architect is used to helping this process.

[bboygravity]

I thought architects are designers who are not experts on the technical details of things like constructions (strength, earthquake proofness, wind proofing), heating/cooling, humidity issues, electrical installation building codes, proper tubing, insulation materials, sound proofing etc.

That's the experience / knowledge I'd want to hire for oversight.

I don't see how a designer is the best person for that but then maybe my idea about architects mostly being desk-bound designers focused on estatics is totally wrong?

[quickthrowman]

> maybe my idea about architects mostly being desk-bound designers focused on estatics is totally wrong?

Yep, it’s totally wrong. No doubt there are some architects/engineers who focus strictly on design. An architect/engineer is generally “in charge” of a construction project in the US, at least for commercial construction, which is the segment where most of the architects work.

I’m just a lowly subcontractor PM but the GC generally works for the architect/engineer.

Edit: New building projects will have multiple drawing sets: architectural, structural, civil, landscape, mechanical, electrical, plumbing, low voltage systems, fire protection, as well as others depending on the project specifics, but all of these engineers are coordinated by the architect.

[reef84_]

No, architects are the ones who know. Source - construction oversight guy.

[ghouse]

Not all architects know. Source -- Am in month 21 of a construction project. Have caught more than a dozen mistakes made by both the architect and the GC's subcontractors.

[darkwater]

But that's normal, there are varying degrees of competence in each trade. If someone asks who should they hire to develop a software solution, the answer is "a software company", even if there are software companies that develop awful software full of bugs.

[jq-r]

Slightly sarcastic a bit, but isn't the point of all that engineering schooling, certification, titles, social prestige etc some kind of assurance that those people don't make mistakes? Or if they do, very slight ones? In a sense you cannot have it both ways right?

[darkwater]

The idea behind is surely that, but it doesn't mean they can screw things anyway... the difference is that they will be accountable by law for it (which is an important difference, especially if compared to the world of THIS SOFTWARE IS PROVIDED "AS IS")

[hn_go_brrrrr]

Mistakes due to ignorance, presumably?

[roel_v]

You cannot state such things without specifying where you are. In some places (and/or industries or market segments, even), architects are 'just the design person', sometimes even not really doing technical design but just function and aesthetics. In others they are engineers who do (besides design) very hands-on oversight of all sorts of contractors.

[throw0101c]

> I thought architects are designers who are not experts on the technical details of things like constructions

Depends on the architect. Someone like Steve Baczek knows quite a bit about technical details, and actually puts them in his blueprints.

[seb1204]

I think statement like this need a country name to be included. I. Germany the architect is responsible to also manage contractors and that they do the right thing. The architect can however employ a 'Bauleiter', a foreman?