Case 26: Historic Restoration
This case study tends to surprise me more and more as I read. One of the most shocking things is the lack of professionalism between the Owner and the Architect. The first thing that caught my eye was the fact that the Architect brings her child to the meetings with the owner which is totally unprofessional because she isn’t giving the client the attention that he deserves for he services. Another thing that is specified in the reading is the fact that the Architect recommended a Contractor from San Fransisco without showing the client any prove of previous work nor portfolio. In this case a recommendation without any solid documentation isn’t a good way to get the client to trust your input in the project. Another big red flag is that the Architect isn’t specifying the contractor with drawings or specifications on the whole project and she’s using “if needed” or “if necessary”. This isn’t a good way to give client the service he deserves because the Architect should be able to specify the materials and do the best for the customer to be satisfy. The last and worst thing in this whole situation is that they are working with an estimated budget which is not good because that could make the cost of the project higher than it needs to be and those number figures are not in contract. I think this must be one of the worst contracts ever written there is lack of professionalism and communication which is a big problem in any serious legal document.
