Jump to content

Recommended Posts

  • Replies 37k
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

Posted
7 minutes ago, TwiceHorn said:

I suppose the notion of working on an historic project was too tempting

Yes, who wouldn’t want to knock down an historic, if not all that old, building and replace it with Trump’s pleasure palace?

2 minutes ago, Nuge said:

Isn't @Superhero's firm involved in this?  What's the word?  Any insider dirt?

His was just a demo contractor iirc

  • Hook 'Em 2
Posted
11 minutes ago, TwiceHorn said:

They/he was announced as the architect pretty much from the get-go, definitely before the demo.

I remember because I looked him up and he seemed credible.

But he should have known he was working for a grimy little pimp and that the "visions" would diverge.

I suppose the notion of working on an historic project was too tempting.

Oh, he was definitely on from early days - when the renderings came out it was difficult to even find out who the architect was, but eventually I found a blurb somewhere. He's definitely creditable but the weird thing was is, unlike most architecture firms his was difficult to find much info on. At the time there were about 2 intern-level staffers on LinkedIn and his website looked like something a small residential shop would've done about 10 years ago.

Most of his work appears to have been on Catholic churches and for a conservative Catholic university, along with some smaller neoclassical projects. His work isn't bad - style is irrelevant; we all work in the style we tend to be comfortable with, and neoclassical certainly is an appropriate style here - but he seems to be one of those architectural demagogues that believe in One True Style, much like King Charles or Trump himself (or Speer/Hitler, if you want to take it there).

He was all on board but is now the perfect example of the frog on the scorpion. "You knew what I was when you got on."

  • Like 1
Posted
19 minutes ago, Nuge said:

Isn't @Superhero's firm involved in this?  What's the word?  Any insider dirt?

Nope. East coast business units that do work around DC. We on the west coast are libruls are not fond of that decision.

Starting construction without a full set of documents isn’t out of the norm. On most projects we work on these days, the drawings are broken into different packages, eg foundations, site, structural, architectural, etc. But you at least need the architects to “freeze the backgrounds” so other designers can get to work.

If they’re still working on the concept of the plan, then yeah, that’s really strange - and will be full of changes leading the project to miss the schedule and being over budget.

On projects like these; assuming there’s stone and custom materials, you’ll want to order materials far in advance. Any delay in material releases means the schedule moves right. So yeah… we’ll probably end up with a federal building with plaster and clad with hardy board. 

  • Hook 'Em 1
  • Like 1
Posted
11 minutes ago, Superhero said:

Starting construction without a full set of documents isn’t out of the norm. On most projects we work on these days, the drawings are broken into different packages, eg foundations, site, structural, architectural, etc. But you at least need the architects to “freeze the backgrounds” so other designers can get to work.

Yes, this is typical, particularly on larger projects where you can "stage" the various permits (clearing/grading, dry utilities, site, foundation etc.) and begin work on each in turn. Of course here there's likely no permitting authority, or if there is it was ignored, so here we are.

We try to "freeze the backgrounds" as early as possible, especially where stuff is touching ground, so that those permits can be obtained early and subsequent work begun. Freezing the backgrounds in other areas sometimes doesn't occur until closer to building permit application, mainly due to clients constantly changing their minds. (Right, McCrery?)



×
×
  • Create New...