Let's agree to disagree

Building process is a teamwork and starts with design. The design process is also teamwork and includes several phases: architectural design, project construction, projects of installation, fire projects, etc.. Regardless of any possible disagreements among engineers who work various stages of design, the end is always a compromise, if the facility is under construction or already build.

But what happens in a compromise between authoritativeness of all architects involved?


I believe that all architects have encountered, at least once in his or her career, with dissent by architectural authorities in municipalities where the project should be accepted and approved for construction. Sometimes it looks like a Sisyphus work. I do not know if there is disagreement in the way of understanding the architectural requirements for a given location according to urban plan or simply misunderstanding attitudes?
Often is felt lack of creative thinking by fellow architects who work in that office job municipalities. Urban project is consist of rules and restrictions, which has the task to mold the space beyond  in the level of a creative way, avoiding confusion and creating favelas. In this sense, urban project suggests creativity in architectural expression within the allowed parameters for a particular location.

But what happens in a concrete example. The following are visualizations of a project which is developed under the urban requirements and with no trouble would be approved in the municipality.

The building is located on the urban stamp of 10m/12m. Within that rectangle should be placed all secondary deviations from the facade including eaves. Furthermore, the object should be placed in limiting the amount of up to 7.2m to the final wreath and 4.5 meters to the top of the roof. Under roof space can not be used for living. It emphasizes that the total gross of surface floors is 240m2.

It leads to a situation according to project building numerical rules and it looks rigid as shown. If we built a whole range of urban plan according to the specified parameters, the space would look like a model trapped in a lifeless proportions.

At that point required compromise between architects. It takes a designer to be free to fully express their creativity and responsible municipal architect to recognize intention with respect to the parameters. It involves creative reading of the urban project.

If the space under the roof height allows to organize life without an additional openings, just by setting the roof windows, then it comes to no changing the parameters given in the plan. Furthermore, if the plan allows conversion of garage space in stores, small apartment gallery under roof is  not raising utility costs.

Certain small architectural interventions in secondary plastic of building does not have to be placed within the boundaries of the construction line. This reduces the useful space in the building and unnecessarily harmed profits of investor in in selling of useful space.

When you consider all the possibilities, the object can get better shape and can become the topic of conversation between creative architects of two opposing sides. The creative compromise will lead to a solution and agree when we are disagree.




Here's my attempt to compromise the previously described situation.