Architects forced to redesign

  • Article by: JIM BUCHTA , Star Tribune
  • Updated: September 17, 2012 - 9:20 PM

The recession hit architects hard, forcing downsizing and new approaches to business.

  • 6
  • Comments

  • Results per page:
  • 1 - 6 of 6
swatisedSep. 18, 1212:16 AM

the problem with architects is the whole vision thing. you kind of wind up praying they get it. the hope you don't mind that they charge you more to get it righter.

3
7
sweekjackSep. 18, 1210:37 AM

So why did Minnesota outsource architectural design of the Twins Stadium, TCF Stadium and the Vikings Stadium if we have plenty of talent laying around right here in Minnesota?

6
1
mouthwashSep. 18, 12 1:17 PM

The field of Architecture as run today is a joke! The FUNDAMENTAL FUNCTION of architecture is inherently preliminary -- it is supposed to provide _guideposts_ for the actual building phase of a project, such that "stairways to heaven" etc don't end up being built which could have been prevented by having a blueprint. The joke is that builders try and hold the architects fully accountable for the final building product based on miniature models and blueprints! Perhaps this is a ploy by the TRUE moguls -- the building companies and property owners -- to attempt to keep their own rich executives off the "I'm rich but have responsibilities too" list. Sort of like the oft-corrupt subordinate relationships sometimes found between doctor/nurse, attorney/paralegal, etc.

0
5
rshacklefordSep. 18, 12 2:48 PM

Still, Norback isn't overly confident. "We've replaced it all and are ahead of where we were, but we're still wondering, 'How strong is the ground you're standing on?'" ---- Nice choice of metaphor there RSP president Norback. We too wonder how strong what we are standing on is. Like that Sabo bridge...

1
1
philawkerSep. 18, 12 3:19 PM

If Congress and the President had focussed more on building actual buildings (instead of roads, bridges and highways infrastructure), the recovery would be quicker and the rate of return better. Do the math: For every $1 million of recovery money used for infrastructure, around half was used for materials (taxed at aproximately 6.5% that goes to the state - not the federal government - total $32,500), 1/4 for equipment that didn't have to be bought - it was already collecting dust in the suppliers' construction yards- and also only taxed at 6.5% for rental (total $16,250) and 1/4 or 7.35 persons for mostly lower scale laborer wages (avg. $34K/yr. & depending on filing status and exemptions - collected state tax $2244 & fed tax $5100 - x 7.35 = $16493 state income kept by the state and $37,485 fed income. That means for every $1 million spent, the feds only get back 3.7% on their return. Not even 4% percent!!! Now if buildings were built or remodeled, half of that expense would be in skilled prevailing wages averaging $60K/yr. - higher tax bracket at double the labor hours. it doesn;t take a rocket scientist to figure out that the rate of return back to the government and taxpayers would be almost triple, put more people to work, less unemployment and associated unemployment benefits paid out, less bankruptcy, less foreclosures, housing holding their value and so on. Does this make to much sense to the President and Congress NOT to implement?!

0
1
philawkerSep. 18, 12 3:57 PM

On my previous comment regarding the rate of return almost tripled, it meant that it would be triple the rate of return to the feds from what the infrastructure return was, and not triple the return of each $1 million of money spent/investment. Since the stimulus money was in the BILLIONS, you can pretty much prorate the additional investment savings.

0
1
  • 1 - 6 of 6

Comment on this story   |  

ADVERTISEMENT

Connect with twitterConnect with facebookConnect with Google+Connect with PinterestConnect with PinterestConnect with RssfeedConnect with email newsletters

ADVERTISEMENT

ADVERTISEMENT

ADVERTISEMENT

ADVERTISEMENT

ADVERTISEMENT

ADVERTISEMENT