Matthias Kelly - Prompt 1

Part 1 Core Value: Collaboration

Part 2 Core Value: Accountability

Briefly describe a case study and list a scenario in which one of these core values might be compromised in practice regularly.

During a discussion with my mentor and another colleague for this prompt, we chose to speak about the core value of collaboration. Regarding collaboration, they brought up the importance of aligning common goals, especially with commercial development clients. Architects want the best design, and commercial development clients want the most profit. There is the issue of collaborating to balance out the divide between the desire for profit, and the desire for good and respectful architecture. They brought up a particular type of commercial development client, known as the “flipper.” These clients do not really care about items in the design that do not have an immediate financial impact.

One case my mentor brought up was the desire that clients have of using wood framing in commercial/mixed use construction – for example, a four story building with ground floor shops and apartments on the upper floors. Usually metal framing would be appropriate here. Wood framing isn’t often preferred by architects in this case; however it is a recent trend for commercial clients to pursue this. Here is the example of the "not concerned unless immediate cost" idea. As the client is a “flipper”, they will not sit on the property for too long – so what the building is framed out of doesn’t concerned them. They will be long gone before the wood framing begins to deteriorate. Often times in this case it is necessary for increased collaboration when the client wants to go one route and the architect knows it is better to go another route when it comes to building materials.

A scenario where the core value of accountability might be compromised is in regards to ADA compliance. ADA compliance is all about the architect being accountable for following the government’s rules and regulations for those with disabilities. A point of ADA which might frustrate an architect is the requirement for accessible bathroom and kitchen layouts in every unit of an apartment complex. The architect’s argument is that not every occupant is disabled, whereas the government’s argument is that at any point, any occupant of any apartment could become disabled. Although the architect may seem to have a valid argument against this regulation, they are responsible for following the ADA regulations.