When did it become common for one architecture firm to do the exterior of a building (shell) and a different architecture firm to do the interior? Come on corporate america that's ridiculous.

yeah, fuck michaelangelo and that stupid sistene chapel.

hardly comparable...

I'm not trying to knock anyone, just frustrated by the unnecessary discontinuity in design that results..

Whats the one word you constantly hear from contractors, subcontractors, project managers, quantity surveyors etc etc?

$$$ ?

Oh, and after that -it's "Cry-Cry-Cry!!!!" Those groups are Bunch of friggin' babies.

Mysteryman,

Good to have you back - US, Angola, Dubai, Brazil, where next?

I was thinking of:

coordination.

ummm...this isn't exactly new.

and frankly, architects despite what they think about themselves are generally lousy interior designers.

In Los Estados Unidos the architect's documentation burden is higher than in other countries. Contractors in the US assume much less responsibility for keeping things dry, code compliant, and standing up than in say, Germany. The gap falls on the miserable architect.

A generalist firm in Europe during core and shell and interiors can concentrate on the total package, with a moderate level of detail. It turns out great. When I was working in Stuttgart, it was not unusual for contractors to build elaborate architectural guardrails off of a sketch. No shop drawings, no structural calcs - just an understanding of the craft involved and what it would take to deliver the element with the same level of care as the rest of the building.

A generalist firm in the United States must address the entire building in great detail, and normally fucks it all up and gets sued or fired. If I had to guess, I would say that less than 10% of architects in this country have the ability to select an appropriate carpet for an office corridor AND can also draw a parapet flashing detail. I think they are all on Archinect.

And to take it a step further: it takes a very large firm to have all the skill sets to deliver a competent design for both the exterior and interior of the building. Large firms that are competent in multiple areas tend to do competent, uninspiring buildings that are good enough to avoid lawsuits or termination, but not much better.

at that is why i strongly believe in learning the trades in some fashion....

its unfortunate, but the answer is simple, money.
plus, with the complexity of buildings of today, very few can handle both core/shell & interiors.

haha: I think they are all on Archinect.

houseofmud is obviously a master of the CYA notes!

There's a (usually) also a different kind of pace for interior design - even in a large firm, the way it works (best) is if the interior and the architecture processes are separate in some way.

The only two recent examples that I have heard of this practice were both cases where the 2 firms involved had to JV together for "political reasons" and this type of exterior/interior split was how they managed sharing the work.

"frankly, despite what they think about themselves, [architects] are generally lousy interior designers"

I agree with jafidler - that is the real answer to your question. architects tend to design "hard" interiors and treat the interior as an afterthought - few clients are looking for that.

because many architects have tended to design interiors to suit their own tastes over the years, more and more owners have tended to pull that work away from the base-building architect and give it to a separate firm that will give the FF&E the attention - and the look - the owner desires.

we have nobody to blame but ourselves.

many buildings are built without tenants. so the shell and core is all that is certain until the leasing of the interior is determined.

I have yet to see an architecture firm that didn't have a staff of ID's to cover the interior. Any firm of decent size should be able to handle the whole package.

My experience with different firms handing shell vs. interior has been when a developer does the shell via their preferred architect and the tenants do the interior via their preferred architects. This is quite common in retail, as well some others such as health care, etc. I can think of a couple major national retailers that let developers do their interiors, but not many.

HouseofMud makes some good points though. So much of a set of CD's these days is either CYA notes and details - or - minute nit picking details to make up for poor craftsmanship/bad contractors.

When doing some renovation work I notice that CD sets in the 50's were very thin. Plans, elevations some sections and that's about it. And for big projects mind you. Guess those old buildings were cutting edge for their time. My guess is they spent a lot more time on design and the actual "art" of the profession. Today that seems largely lost. Maybe and old fogey can say it has always been this way, but I kinda wish I were an architect 50+ years ago.

50+ years ago the construction process was less litigious, the architect had more authority, and craftsman were able to look at simple drawings and understand (and know how to do) what was expected. construction culture has changed and we've had to adapt.

we don't, by the way, have any specifically-trained IDs in our office of 13. we handle interior design as an integrated effort when that's what the client wants OR we hire a separate consultant.

Vado's response about commercial spec buildings being just shell designs since there isnt a know user is correct, also...Architects have been great at giving up control of their own industry. Less and less Architects consider their work as integral anymore...its a shame, but the nature of the commercial beast.

What's so bad about unnecessary discontinuity anyway.

exhibit a - for why architects should not design interiors

exhibit b



you can find many such examples in the archinect image gallery.

I will NEVER hire an Interior "Designer"...ever. Good Architects Design...Interior Decorators go Shopping.

not to turn it into "that thread," but are you familiar with NCIDQ? i think you may have just royally insulted a number of our coworkers and consultants.

1. Not familiar with NCIDQ.. 2. I dont care.

First Taliesin you should understand that Interior Designers and Decorators are 2 different people. Some of the best designers Ive ever met are Interior Designers. They just get it, as well as any architect when it comes to the detail and feel of a room. I will defer to a good interior designer any day if they need help.

jafidler, what is it that you think is bad about those interiors?

uhh...wasn't he being sarcastic?

the first is just a couple eames bus chairs plopped down in a stark empty room. photographs well, but i can't imagine spending any time there despite the great views. nice architecture, bad interior design.

the second appears to be an office with incredibly hard surfaces. i imagine it gets very noisy in there (though there are no phones). there's a random glass partition that doesn't seem to serve any purpose. everyone sits facing a blank wall. there's redundant task lighting. not particularly good architecture, even worse interior design. (though it does have a distinct point of view and could be a good space to convey an image of what an office is, even if it is not exactly functional.)

I'd argue that the top image is not a space in which "interior design" is even an issue. It's clearly intended to be an interior version of the exterior building - an enclosed portion of a bigger thing.

The office space is different. The random glass panel is indeed curious, though the different chair type in the near ground might give a clue. I'm guessing the space is something like a testing center, so people spend only a short time there at the desk. I would hope so, because that purple is garish. Also keep in mind the styling that happens for interior shots - a lot of stuff might be sitting behind the camera.

Whatever - I'm not saying those spaces are good, just curious. When it comes to corporate office interiors, IDs tend to be a lot better at it. But there is far more to building than corporate offices. I'm a registered architect, but I'm far better at interior design than architecture, though I do both. I think a blanket statement like "architects should not design interiors" is pretty unfair - some buildings are intended to be a similar expression from all sides. Some buildings are intended to be fitted out separately on the inside, as vado said.

With all due respect, how can we possibly judge the appropriateness of the two examples above, without knowing 1) what the space is used for, and 2) what the client wanted ?

There are some architects who only do roofing membrane consulting and litigation. It's a big field and theres niches for everyone.

jack i'm consulting in that world now, still alive and making money....


to answer the posters questions -

you're not a genius and architecture was so much easier in the 1920's. i did this bank interior once, the security system made the MEP and Architecturals look like a joke, security, i mean what the hell do i know about security and i'm a smart guy (not a genius).

i just did steam pipe boiler repair drawings, i had now fucking clue as the boiler expert tapped on pipes and heard the vibration telling me the pressure was off and water had too be released.

architect's in the US don't do the whole thing unless they have a team of architects that can do interiors and core and shell and most firms don't have team like this...those are the few CORPORATE firms that make mucho dollars, and usually have engineers and other specialists on staff...

to put this in perspective, a proper waterproofing detail for a new storefront proprietary system in an existing building requires as much man hours and design as a master plan for the next olympic city sport plan

early in my career, i was taught that we architects do not mingle with interior designers, i thought it was very strange being green and all. but after working at a firm with mostly interior designers, i realized why architects are so stuck up.

interior designer are not architecturally trained, so sometimes is it very difficult to communicate with them in architectural terms. they do not stamp drawings therefore there isn't much of a liability issue for what they do. NCIDQ is not by law to carry the name interior designer. i refer to them as "rag pickers" amongst my few architecturally train colleagues.

however, it didn't mean i learn nothing from them. there are many aspects of what an interior design knows that we architects might think is unimportant. the fact of the matter is,when it come down to it, the client still want that viking appliance, that expansive designer's sofa, that custom color curtain, that $25/sf scuffmaster trowel on paint and can careless about the exterior being brick or eifs or curtain wall system and choose to spend money on the interiors. a good interior designer can have a much closer relationship with the client than architect since what they pick is something that the owner will touch and feel day in a day out.

I have worked with a few very talented interior designers that can persuade the client to go with certain aspects of the design, and many architects just don't know how to. so the lesson here is architects should keep their minds open. if something can be learned from someone we ought to get out of our turtle shells show some respect.

Very few buildings can be designed from the outside in....sure there are exceptions but the success of a building is usually judged by how well it supports the intended function. Those architects that think interior designers are all decorators and those interior designers that think arranging furniture is actually "interior design" will find that they will end up working with eachother in old school hell.