So, when I call a professional, why not bill for a dollar? Afterall, you have the cost of the phone system, the cost of repairing the phone system during its life, the cost of the phone line and the cost of that receptionist along with thr payroll...
Gee, if you are not there and I have to call back, that's another buck. For crying out loud! Charge enough to cover your own business expenses like everyone else! |
Given the choice, I don't see many clients preferring your rationale--being billed for a percentage of all a companies non-direct costs rather than the direct costs they use. As a consumer buying a $50 appliance, that might be 50 cents. But an architects fee on a project the size of PSU could be $5,000,000. So all those reimbursable costs (2 or 3 years worth of printing, faxing, etc.) could easily add up to tens of thousands of dollars. A client wants to see those charges, when they happened, why the happened, and know they happened for their project.
What makes sense on the micro scale doesn't always make sense on the macro scale. |
I don't think so. If the fee flat and was $5,015,000 and included everything they would not even think about it. The supplier of nearly every product and service on the project does the same thing. They dont think..."gee I wonder if that bill for sewer pipe included some charge for making copies that should have been paid by another customer".
To me this whole practice is a hold over from the 50's when expensive Xerox machines came out. It was hard to imagine that a machine would make you more efficient and save you money so some savy salesperson said "just charge your customers for the copies". The extra money went to the bottom line and firms have become addicted to it. You benefit as much or more than your clients for the convience and efficiency of the things you charge for. What if, instead of charging for plotter time, you had to do the drawings by hand? What if you only had US Mail instead of faxes or long distance phone calls? Would you make as much money? I think not. |
Re; Nike: In other words, because of that corporations massive contribution to the econonmy, it's o.k. that they don't have to play fair and pay taxes like all the working stiffs. Well, that's fine if the people who do play by the rules get to decide that Nike's contribution excuses them from playing by the rules. I'm talking about what's fair, not what's currently legal.
Re; those poor beseiged corporations: from one perspective, corporations are these marvelous, altruistic, economic engines producing goods and services for people, but from another neccessary and realistic perspective, corporations provide an insulating structure that serves the ambitions of certain numbers of extremely greedy people that head them up. We've heard so much about the architects end of this rec center project. Gragg is right about paying architectural firms for their proposals so more worthy firms can participate in this part of important projects. Aren't developers the other half of this effort to build the rec center? They figure heavily in the design result. It's time to hear about those guys in this instance. Unless I misunderstand, and PSU is contracting this theirselves with the new VP they hired. Doesn't sound right. |
How did the psu rec center turn in to this? Another thread marred by arguements...
|
Quote:
Corporations are simply groups of people. People pay taxes. How is it more fair that if you buy from, work for or own shares of a corporation you are somehow getting away with something. What makes you think that taxing them does anything to the "greedy people that head them up"? |
does PSU have an architecture school? (we are talking about portland state university) or is there another psu?
|
Quote:
Can we go back to discussing buildings please? :gaah: |
Sorry urbanpdx. You'll have to find the answers to your questions somewhere else, or do some serious thinking about the ones you've received so far. I'm more interested in how the design of this building might ultimately work out under this design-build principle.
I re-read some things, so I think I understand that in this case, PSU assumes the role of developer, inviting architects partnered with contractors to produce these guaranteed to stay within a predesignated budget designs. So they've chosed YGH whose plaza side looks pretty good, but maybe not the others. What I'm wondering now, is what the status of the design relative to the budget might be. If PSU were to come under a lot of pressure from say, the board of directors to modify the street side (more windows for example) could they be obliged to do that even if it would require an adjustment to the budget? What kind of effort would be required to have PSU modify the design if one seems called for? And if they did subsequently upwardly increase the budget, wouldn't the losing contenders react to such an action as unfair, or would the current contract have built into it a provision that would allow for such adjustments? I think we all need to see the rest of this building, at least I do, before being able to have a better idea about how this thing might go. Saturday, February 2nd I'm just adding a bit here about possible answers to questions raised about the rec center design selection process. They're offered over on portlandarchitecture.com via a response by Ernest Tipton, PSU's campus design and planning manager to Gragg's Oregonian article and Brian Libby's own blog article about the rec center project. Many of you may have read that blog. Here's the link: http://portlandarchitecture.com/ Tipton was miffed at Gragg and Libby, the former for reporting what Tipton considered to be misinformation, the latter for compounding the error. His comment concludes with a clarification of the current status of the team proposal having rated the greatest number of points according to the system chosen for this purpose by PSU: "A recommendation has been sent to administration that PSU enter further negotiations with the Shanska/ YGH team. No team has yet been awarded the project and there is as yet no “Winner”. The process of Architectural design is never complete until the building is fully functional programmatically and aesthetically. In referring to both urban and building design Virtuvius defined these as economy." Ernest Tipton |
Quote:
You know, you can be really clear and well thought with your arguements. I fully agree on this point. |
Thanks Westsider but I think Drmyeyes has a point and the subject should go back to the building.
BTW, what house is that in you logo? I like it. |
Portland State University has an uncredited school of architecture that I am apart of.
|
I forget the designers name, the house is somewhere in kentucky. I was looking at minimalist house plans and it just stood out to me.
|
Re; westsider's logo: Farnsworth House, Mies Van der Rohe
http://rds.yahoo.com/_ylt=A0geutCuUc...orthhouse.org/ |
I thought I had seen it before, that is a great house.
|
hmmm.....if i dont get into UW school of architecture, that will defintely be an option for me.
|
If it helps you ...
... to know. UofO is working on a School of Architecture in Old Town (2nd and Burnside I think). They open in 2008 I believe. They have a banner on the building.
EP |
yeah, I am playing a wait and see with UofO's masters degree program that they are expanding on here in Portland cause right now it is a crappy program. But things can change. PSU's architecture department is good, but the teachers can be hit or miss with adjunct teachers. They have lost some really great teachers in the past couple years that they shouldn't of let go.
|
well this is the closest thing i could find to the montomery blocks and I didn't want to start a new thread. I drove by the Jasmine Tree restraunt and it was closed down with a fence around it. Is this maybe signify the start of this project. maybe demo will come soon
|
and i found a picture http://flickr.com/photos/skomra/
http://farm1.static.flickr.com/179/4...c659cb.jpg?v=0 |
All times are GMT. The time now is 5:34 AM. |
Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.7
Copyright ©2000 - 2024, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.