Category: Case Study #1

As a professional, the responsibilities of an Architect are to ensure the health, welfare and safety of the people. Architects find possible solutions to problems that need to be addressed regarding the site and/or community the site will be serving/housing with given restrictions. An architect communicates with the engineers, builders and clients in order to organize each project. Preparations of the specifications, plans and cost estimates for each project should be handled as well. The architect should ensure that other works do not interfere with the design plans.

The Architect in this case has discovered that the superintendent of construction has been cheating on the cement content of the concrete. This will result in the concrete not reaching the full strength which is required for this project according to specifications and by the building code. The architect should review the requisition including the month’s concrete work and submit/report it to the Department of Buildings proving/stating the errors. If anything were to happen to the building structurally, the Architect would be at fault. Therefore, the Architect should cease any money transactions as well as construction work until the issues have been resolved.

As a professional working architect, your main responsibility is to make sure you protect the health, welfare, and safety of the public. As a licensed architect, your career is a risk if any of your staff and/or clients are put in any type of danger because of your malpractice. That’s why is very important to work under rules and regulations. In Case Study #1, the architect is being compromised by the construction’s superintendent work ethics. This person has been cheating on the cement content of the concrete to save some money on the construction. The problem is that it does not meet with the strength required by the specifications and by the local building code.

One of the problems of this case is that the owner is aware of the situation but doesn’t care if it saves him money. Another problem is that the architect now must decide on the situation. I believed that the architect should stop construction as soon as possible before anything happens. Then the owner, architect, and superintendent should meet and discuss the current situation to find a solution. At the same time, the architect should notify the DOB and report the case. Also, the contractor’s requisition should not be certified. It was clear that the contractor didn’t follow the specifications of the architect and the right materials weren’t used. In the case of an agreement to continue the job, all the structures involving the concrete should be redone with an additional inspector on-site.

What do you think of when you hear the word professional? When I work part-time photo-editing, I often hear customers say, “You are professional, you can do it, just make it more beautiful.” So, what is professional? For me, when we carry the professional title, we need to know what we are going to do and try our best to make every detail of the work as best as possible. In another word, professionalism also means responsibility.
When we play as a professional architect, one of our important responsibilities is to ensure that all works are carried out to specific standards, building codes, guidelines, and regulations. In the case from Andy pressman, he mentions that After the building owner learned from the architect that the concrete composition was not up to standard, the owner only responded perfunctorily, so the architect suspected that the owner was cutting corners, cheating on the cement content. If I am the architect, I will Initiate a meeting with the contractor and owner, ensure they know the risk that if the concrete is not reaching the building requirements. If they don’t give a good solution after the meeting, then I will go to report the case to the department of building.

In Case Study 1 the Architect has been assigned a project by a client who has a private construction company. The issue with that is that the client and the construction company are trying to cheat the architect. They are removing some of the cement from the concrete mixture to reduce cost.

The Architect should tell the contractor about the client’s scheme. That’s because as an Architect we have to follow and oversee a certain set of codes, one being a code that has to do with the strength of concrete. Architect’s also have to make sure that the project they are designing protects the health, welfare and safety of the public.

As a professional an architect in New York state is responsible to protect the health, welfare, and safety of the public. And given the fact that both the construction superintendent and the owner are okay with using lower strength concrete for a project that specifies strong concrete, needs to decide whether or not to sign off on this concrete for the Department of buildings.

As I said before an architect responsible to protect the public, and signing off on concrete that doesn’t meet the local building code would conflict with this responsibility. Not to mention that it’s morally wrong, seeing as how it could lead to the loss of life, given that it’s not designed to withstand the amount of loads it would have if the concrete was stronger. The right thing to do would be to confront both the owner or superintendent and show them that this decision to use weaker concrete is wrong or to report it to the department of building so that the appropriate actions can be taken.

In this situation there are many problems the architect is facing. The architect required a certain amount of concrete mixture to use to follow regulations and code. However, the owner had the audacity to go behind the architect’s back and select a less efficient concrete for the purpose of saving money. The contractor also was aware of this scheme as he also was in this  agreement with owner without the architect’s approval. As architects this could be a big problem not only in the future construction of the building but also safety for the public and also the architect’s job is on the line if it goes wrong. There is a lack of communication between the architect and the owner as well as between the architect and the contractor.

Safety is really important. We have to make sure everything is correct and signed off that way there are no major problems in the future. The architect should hold off and not sign the requested concrete from the owner. In a project all three, the architect, the contractor and the owner need to come into agreement in the end about all the information. However, the owner and contractor did not follow this and now the architect’s job is in danger. One solution the architect can take into action is hold off on signing it and go to the Department of Buildings and report the construction company and gather everyone together. That way they can resolve the problem together and there won’t be any issues

         Following the design/build method of construction where the architect designs the building for the owner/developer with the owner already been in contact with an independent construction company. One of the problems was the owner who was making demands without thinking of any structural consequences and the superintendent agreeing to them just so to save money on the owner/developers side but by doing this the structural strength of the building is been diminished and would be unable to perform the structural component which it is been used for. While also going against the building code and regulations. 

          The architect would have to require a slump test to be done. While also notifying the Department of Buildings to send an Inspector construction safety enforcement officer to inspect the structure as it is unfit for living. Then a formal notice should be given to the owner/ developer stating clearly that the agreement between them has been breached. The contractor’s requisition should not be certified as the contractor clearly didn’t use the right amount of materials and the job should be redone. In conclusion, the architect and the contractor have no formal problem as there were no legal documents been them but the duty of the architect is the protection of the lives of people.

As a professional, the responsibilities of an architect is to protect the health, safety and welfare of the public. The problem with case study #1 is that the concrete content does not meet the strength required by specifications and the local building code. The owner/developer and the construction company are aware of this problem but are willing to overlook it to save money. The architect is required to certify the contractor’s requisition before receiving payment. The architect should not certify the contractor’s requisition for the concrete work unless it meets the strength standards required. The architect should report the contractor and developer to the department of buildings so that this situation has no chance of reoccurring. Although the developer/contractor were okay with compromising the safety, health and welfare of the public, the architect should never allow that to happen in their profession. Moreover, they should always report anyone who is or intends to risk the public’s safety. If the architect decides to certify the requisition, they are liable for anything that happens due to the concrete strength of the structural system.

As a professional the responsibilities of an architect involve following the set procedures of the contract. They must produce specifications that fully communicate what the owner contracts with the contractor to build, and exactly how to build it. The role the architect plays in construction is to guide the construction to a successful completion, consistent with the design intent, and to administer the owner/contractor agreement even handedly to both parties. If said set procedures are broken, in this case by the owner using lighter concrete mixture for any reason whatsoever, there must be immediate action taken. The architect should not certify the contractor’s requisitions, the architect should also report the situation to all entities. Not only is the architect jeopardizing his or her career by signing off on a structurally ineffective system he is also endangering the livelihood of the buildings would-be occupants.

There is always a situation when the character of a professional is tested in any field whatsoever. Usually the individual does what is the morally correct thing to do and no problems arise from it. This situation should not be solved by simply believing the owner and his promise and his claim that he’ll talk to his construction superintendent. If there is reason to believe that the two parties in the building of the housing are being deceitful it is because they want to cover their own accord and screw the architect over. This would be the perfect opportunity to completely stop this deceitful practice and let the Department of Buildings address this situation. Ultimately no one wins if the architect knowingly signs off on this requisition. The occupants must live under an ineffective structural system, the architect would be held liable if the situation is ever discovered and both parties will lose credibility and business.

In this case study, the owner went behind the architect’s back and decided to change the concrete with the independent construction company superintendent. That way the owner enjoyed all the money that was being saved without the architecture knowledge. Which that would be the problem if anything happens to the house or project the architect would be held accountable. This is mainly because the responsibility of the architect has always been to protect the health, welfare and the safety of the public.

So what I believe the first thing the architect should do is not sign off on the concrete that is being used. Then report to the department of building what that the construction company is using cheap or “lighter” concrete on the project that way they could be in charge of looking into it and make sure everyone that is in the project is doing everything correctly. That way the architect isn’t held accountable for any damage that may occur in the future.