ᐅ Uneven screed – defect remediation refused

Lexmaul79 schrieb:
I somehow knew that this would come from you... it’s a pity, really.

Then maybe you should have thought more carefully about what you were going to write beforehand.

Let’s drop it; you’re happy with your choice and I’m glad for you! In my opinion, you should just avoid making judgments about subjects you only have rudimentary knowledge of – if any at all.

Best regards, Bauexperte

I have no problem with that – but I do have an issue with your arguments about why an expert must also be involved when working with an architect. Voki1 explained it very well – your explanation sounded quite different, which to me suggests that you already have a fixed opinion, either based on a lack of understanding of what the architect’s role involves or simply from worse personal experiences.

I’m just guessing the latter – but even so, that shouldn’t be presented as a general rule. And that’s exactly what you’re doing, underscoring it with subtle accusations and assumptions against me.

You can do it that way, and some users might find it convincing – but I find it rather unfair, as you don’t allow for any discussion at all.

Lexmaul79 schrieb:
You don’t really seem to understand what the role of an architect is – even statements like "supervising their own work" show that.

The architect supervises the work carried out by the contracted companies – and does so independently.

Responsibilities, duties, independence… nice words that are not always implemented as intended.
As mentioned above: not all architects are demi-gods who correctly perform every task expected of them.

In discussions like this, I tend to assume that most architects work with their preferred contractors, even though the client has the final say in the selection after the tender process. This means: in the end, the architect has a close working relationship with “their” company, which their client has chosen.
This is common across industries: either the (previously agreed) lower price wins, or simply the experience of good collaboration. Clients also often accept their architect’s recommendation, just as customers don’t always verify a third service suggested by a second service provider.

This doesn’t necessarily imply construction defects or faults, but trust can sometimes be a bit fragile, which is why having an independent expert can be a good idea.

Lexmaul79 schrieb:

... who, out of ignorance of the professional role, see an architect as ....

YMMD

I disagree with your opinion that independent architects—similar to doctors in white coats—are presumed to be trustworthy by default, while architects employed by general contractors (GCs) / umbrella contractors / construction managers are assumed to be dishonest. Nothing more, nothing less!

Lexmaul79 schrieb:

I simply suppose the second position—though it shouldn’t be presented as generally valid.

In my area of responsibility, I have yet to have any bad experiences with architects—neither independent nor employed ones; on the other hand, plenty with clients.

I have known our architects for a long time; that means we also talk about the “temptations” of our professions. From this firsthand insight, I know how and where architects can manipulate, skillfully and discreetly, so that the client perceives it as their own decision. For example, if your architect were to aim for this—which, thanks to your opinion, I can exclude—you would end up hiring exactly those craftsmen he wants on site, and you would even consider it your own choice. And then we are right back to the topic I have been trying to explain for many posts.

This does not mean that all architects are bad people by nature; only that there are so-called “bad apples” in this profession as well. Furthermore, the tasks of employed and independent architects do not differ significantly; so we return again to the subject of experts.

Lexmaul79 schrieb:

And you do this simply by underpinning it with latent discrimination/accusations against me.

… latent discrimination … latent accusation? I thought I read something like “You have no understanding of the architect’s professional role”…?

Lexmaul79 schrieb:

That can be done, and certainly some users may find it convincing—but I find it rather unfair, because you don’t allow any discussion at all.

You don’t really want to discuss at all, at least so far—you want your opinion confirmed, to be right; I prefer peace. That’s a small but important difference.

Best regards, Bauexperte

Sorry, you are currently getting tangled up in a rather arrogant way... but feel free to keep putting me into the "oh how cute, what the amateur builder says" category—others in the thread have clearly understood what I meant.

And yes, so far it has not become a craft business of my architect, but rather completely unknown companies to him. And there is no informal address or friendly chatting with the craftsmen—but that is probably just a clever manipulation of me that took place there.

Be that as it may, in my opinion it’s not worth continuing this discussion with you—it can hardly be called a discussion, unfortunately.

The funny thing is that everyone here more or less shares the same view, just expressed in different ways. I actually enjoy reading discussions like this when arguments or opinions (especially on matters of taste) get a bit heated. It really kicks the conversation into gear and highlights the different perspectives.

Every now and then, I can’t help but get a little personal and maybe poke someone verbally in the side to see who reacts how loudly with an "ouch."

Almost everyone here gets along well, and it’s okay to tease each other a bit now and then.

Now, I’m going to take charge, grab the power, and declare the discussion closed. (At the same time, I’m curious to see the reactions to that.)