Results 31 to 45 of 86
-
12th April 2004, 07:34 PM #31Registered
- Join Date
- Aug 2003
- Location
- .
- Posts
- 4,816
Originally posted by DarrylF
as evidenced by the IQ of many of the neanderthals who call themselves 'tradies'. (preparing to be flamed )
-
12th April 2004, 09:00 PM #32Originally posted by ozwinner
Huuugh,.....Ohhhhhhh,.................. Ugh
uuurgMick
-
13th April 2004, 09:24 AM #33
Of all the tradespeople and qualified individuals I've worked with over the years, the ones I've had the most cause to wonder about are architects
"I don't practice what I preach because I'm not the kind of person I'm preaching to."
-
13th April 2004, 10:54 AM #34
Engineers are a worry also
-
13th April 2004, 11:10 AM #35
I'm sure that not all Architects are blithering idiots who specialise in wasting the clients money and everybodies time but unfortunately that's been my experience so far. In one case the Architect:
supposedly supervised the project yet after handover I found over 100 defect items including large holes in walls that had been painted into, bifold doors that were inoperable, sewer manholes that were .5M above finish ground level (in the middle of a school playground) and stormwater drain points that sat forlornly well above the surrounding ground. I prepared a defect list for the client and then told them to bill the architects for my services - the architect didn't like me one bit after that!
The same architect went on to design further stages in which she managed to supply plans where the coordinates were @rseabout and the building got started the wrong way- luckily the builder got it worked out, but I don't know who paid for all tha extras.
She designed a boarding house with a kitchen that was tiny. I pointed out that it probably wouldn't meet health department regs for a commercial kitchen. She didn't even realise that it would be classified as a commercial kitchen, that plans for commercial kitchens and associated waste disposal had to be submitted seperately to the health department and to the trade waste department or that there were any minimum sizes, ventilation requirements etc etc associated with a commercial kitchen. So now the school has a new boarding house without a kitchen. She also placed the long axis of the boarding houses from North to South, meaning that while the stairwells and bathrooms are nice and cool the bedrooms get blisteringly hot. I was actually talking to the principal on Sunday night about it all and she told me that she is still trying to convince the board that although this architects firm has given the lowest price for their services they are costing them in the long run.:mad: :mad:
Mick
-
13th April 2004, 11:42 AM #36
In a previous career, I had a lot of contact with architects. In about 23 years of experience I reckon I could count on the fingers of one hand the number of members of that profession who impressed me that they knew what they were doing.
Two true stories as illustrations
This particular genius was designing a large railway station. He had carefully specified what he called an "iron" as a cap detail over the edge of the eaves gutters throughout the complex. This "iron" (the rest of the industry would know it as a rolled steel angle) was to be completely untreated: no galvanizing, no paint - just bare steel. When I questioned him, he assured me that he knew it would rust. When I further questioned him as to why he felt this was a good thing (you could tell that he did by the supercilious smirk), he looked at me with a very superior expression, obviously not expecting me to understand, and said: "Art". I guess he was right: I didn't - and still don't understand. (He didn't get his way, incidentally. The structural subcontractors and the roofies conspired to supply and install fully galvanized and painted sections - they submitted a Variation Order for the additional costs and it was passed and paid).
The second example occurred when I foolishly spent a bit of time as a consultant. (Definition of a consultant: someone who borrows your watch to tell you the time and then charges you for the privilege). I was attempting to instruct a bunch of public sector architects in project management. To illustrate a point about quality and consistency I cited the example of McDonalds: they deliver predictable, reliable quality nearly 100% of the time. One of the group got up and walked out. As he flounced through the door he was heard to remark that he never thought he would hear his "work" being compared to fast food.
Well, he was right, too. His work could not accurately be compared to McDonalds. One of my kids attended a primary school that this bloke had designed and project-managed. It was finished six months late, ran 150% over budget and had a litany of design and construction problems that would fill a book.
I have a mate who is an architect (amazingly enough!). He reckons the Greeks and Romans had it easy because they had only two types of material to work with: stone and wood. So the reason for all the crappy work we see nowadays is that architects have too much choice! Well, it's a point of view.
ColDriver of the Forums
Lord of the Manor of Upper Legover
-
13th April 2004, 12:07 PM #37
I've been watching the house across the road get a second storey. The architect has given it a butterfly roof with a box gutter up the middle. I'm a little bit concerned about what might happen to their lounge room ceiling if the box gutter overflows. I know plenty of buildings have them but they are notorious for leaking and the problem with them is that when they do leak or overflow, the water has nowhere to go but into the roof and through the ceiling. Also a pain in the rear end to replace when they rust out. They're worse than valley gutters on a hip roof.
In my opinion, it would have been safer to have a normal pitched roof and direct the stormwater into gutters on the roof perimeter but then that wouldn't look as good, would it?
We've told the neighbours to leave a shovel and a ladder by the house in case it hails when they are away."I don't practice what I preach because I'm not the kind of person I'm preaching to."
-
13th April 2004, 12:53 PM #38Originally posted by silentC
In my opinion, it would have been safer to have a normal pitched roof and direct the stormwater into gutters on the roof perimeter but then that wouldn't look as good, would it?
How it would look is, of course, a matter of taste and opinion (I think butterfly roofs look crappy but I'm prepared to believe someone else might disagree).
On the other hand, how an internal box gutter will perform in flooding rain conditions is a matter of empirically verified fact. The water will into the building like a second manifestation of the Flood.
Why anyone with half a brain would design a building like this is beyond my comprehension.
ColDriver of the Forums
Lord of the Manor of Upper Legover
-
13th April 2004, 01:33 PM #39
Here's a picture of it.
The thing that isn't obvious from the picture is that the top storey is actually rotated about 5 degrees clockwise (viewed from above) in relation to the lower one. You should have seen the head scratching that went on over that one. And what's with the brown lining board at the back?
"I don't practice what I preach because I'm not the kind of person I'm preaching to."
-
13th April 2004, 01:47 PM #40
Looking good
Now proudly sponsored by Binford Tools. Be sure to check out the Binford 6100 - available now at any good tool retailer.
-
13th April 2004, 01:52 PM #41
I think it will look OK - at least it obscures the one behind it, which you can just see the top of (it's an architect-designed box with a few windows and a ridiculous balcony tacked on the front).
I just think that for the sake of 'something different' the architect has created a few problems for the builder and maybe a potential future problem for the owners."I don't practice what I preach because I'm not the kind of person I'm preaching to."
-
13th April 2004, 01:57 PM #42
Stinky
We obviously need a poll!
Who thinks it looks good - and who, on the other hand, is sensible, sentient, sensitive, aesthetically aware and altogether together?
Whaddaya reckon?
ColDriver of the Forums
Lord of the Manor of Upper Legover
-
13th April 2004, 04:52 PM #43
Rant on.
I can’t see past the problems with the scaffold:
- No toeboards
- Incomplete decks and non-existent steps between deck levels
- Ladders being used on the scaffold to gain extra height - did someone forget what height the decks should be at?
- Electrical power leads draped across uninsulated metal scaffolding
I’d be taking a stab in the dark with the next two due to the photo angle but if that scaffold is close to those LV lines then the electrical distribution company and/or the governments works safe inspectors may become problem. I also recall that scaffolds must be tied into the supporting structure at least every three 3 bays and at least every four metres vertically or no higher than three times the least base width.
And last but not least – is that knob head on the balcony on the left working adjacent to and above the timber guardrail?
Eastie
Rant off.Last edited by Eastie; 13th April 2004 at 06:19 PM.
-
13th April 2004, 06:19 PM #44
No poll needed .....
Imagine if every house was designed by a builder .... my God .... the world would begin to look like all of those mass produced display homes that can be seen in almost any suburb. I can fully understand that builders like to do what is easy and has been done before but sometimes the boundary needs to be pushed.
Col ..... Would you prefer that Darren’s view be blocked by an interesting well designed house or a mock Georgian monstrosity that doesn't belong anywhere near the Australian costal environment.
Now proudly sponsored by Binford Tools. Be sure to check out the Binford 6100 - available now at any good tool retailer.
-
13th April 2004, 06:28 PM #45
Isn't it amazing what a simple question about changing a tap washer can lead to!
Just goes to show what a lot of mixed up crazy people we woodies are...Jack the Lad.
Bookmarks