DougAPowell
Austin, TX
Male, 33
I work in small 2-man architecture firm where I literally wear every hat imaginable (except Owner). I answer the phones, clean the toilets, pay the bills and do the design work. Sometimes that means drawing plans and details necessary to get a building built and other days it may be larger scale projects like city and town planning. It's not always glamorous but it's enjoyable and it's an opportunity to learn how to keep a business running and to learn how to put the built environment together.
Not often but occasionally we miss the mark. The great thing about the design profession is that you always give something your best shot and present it to the client and if they don't like we find out why and - as the old saying goes - go back to the drawing board (but these days that's sketches on paper and a computer). One reason we've been pretty successful at delivering satisfactory products to our clients is because our firm doesn't really come with a prescribed design aesthetic. We both have our personal preference but we strive to design to our clients' wants and needs.
Share Answer: 
I had a feeling this question might come up. I've read several of the reports about the collapses and while there are many aspects that seem puzzling I think overall the collapse was probably unavoidable due to the place of the impact, the amount of the fuel that was dispensed and the failure of some of the fire suppression systems to contain the blaze. Having said that I'm not a structural engineer so I'm really speaking outside my normal purview.
Share Answer: 
Sometimes both. If they are engaged for Construction Administration services they will be paid during the construction process as well.
Share Answer: 
Usually in Austin the only natural disaster-related design consideration we are concerned with is wind load (mostly from tornadoes). Also, I must say that design considerations for earthquakes is on the periphery of my knowledge so I may get some of this wrong. Earthquake-proof can mean several things but generally it means a building is designed in such a way so that it can withstand an earthquake of a particular magnitude (depending on region). Usually that means that the building should be able to flex and move somewhat fluidly without collapse. As one could imagine a building made completely of stone (like they did in say Roman times) would not be particularly earthquake-proof because stone is only stable in one direction - compression. You also don't want a building's structure to be too rigid (as some steel structures can be) because sometimes that will cause the cladding and fenestration systems to fail and that can injure people as well. Another consideration is the foundation itself. Depending on the soils condition and building type you may want to use a flat slab so that the building moves and "floats" on the surface during an earthquake. There are also cases where it's favorable to dig down to seismically stable bedrock and build your foundation from there.
Share Answer: 
Personal Stylist & Life Coach
What's the difference between a life coach and a therapist?
Veterinarian
Who are the bigger hypochondriacs: dog owners or cat owners?
Subway Store Manager
Does Subway have a secret menu?
I personally think Frank Gehry's brand of architecture is way overblown. I think when he first started honing his craft it was exciting and interesting but I think he settled into a niche/comfort zone and it devalued what used to be interesting architecture. In my opinion architecture that is mostly sculpture should be a 1-off kind of thing. If I were a client and and hiring a world-famous architect to design a building for me (and paying their sky-high fees) I would not any other buildings to look like it. Just my personal opinion.
Share Answer: 
First, what people are able to do with the built environment always amazes and intrigues me. Seeing how far other architects and designers can push the envelope is one of the things that keeps me motivated. But as far as when I decided I wanted to go into architecture I would have to say fourth grade. My father is also an architect and he agreed to do a presentation at career day. All the kids in the class were transfixed by his drawings and had more questions for him than any other kid's parent. I knew that if what my dad did for a living was that interesting as a fourth grader it would have to be great as an adult. Of course, this is before I learned how much an architect makes (heh). My dad was the most popular presenter of the week until Jack Del Rio (then with the Dallas Cowboys) came and presented what he did for a living. Even after that I still wanted to be an architect.
Share Answer: 
If it were determined that a structure failed or did not perform as expected (say, a roof leak) due to a design defect then yes, the architect can be held liable for some or all of the damage. It just really depends on the situation.
Share Answer: 
-OR-
Login with Facebook (max 20 characters - letters, numbers, and underscores only. Note that your username is private, and you have the option to choose an alias when asking questions or hosting a Q&A.)
(A valid e-mail address is required. Your e-mail will not be shared with anyone.)
(min 5 characters)
By checking this box, you acknowledge that you have read and agree to Jobstr.com’s Terms and Privacy Policy.
-OR-
Register with Facebook(Don't worry: you'll be able to choose an alias when asking questions or hosting a Q&A.)
Browse Jobs
Host a Q&A
Search
Submit Your Question
Host a Q&A
