Summary: Michael Tardif’s “Master Builder: R.I.P.” article in the December 21 issue drew 21 letters to the editor—a record number for one story. Although the letters praising Tardif’s article and its concepts outnumbered the negative 17-4, we present below representatives from both sides of the fence. Thanks to all those who wrote in.

We also received a letter from a reader asking us to amplify our presentation of Whitney M. Young recipient Norma Sklarek’s role as an educator.

Re: “Master Builder: R.I.P.”

I think that Michael Tardif's editorial misses the mark about the whole concept of the Master Builder. Looking back, the Architect was respected for his [sic] total grasp of the building process, including specific technical expertise unavailable from other sources. From the organization of space to the aesthetic solution to the problem to the technical solutions to creating the built solution. As an architect graduate making a living on the construction side of the business, the biggest criticism of my architectural brethren is a lack of understanding of how the nuts and bolts come together, and creating designs that reflect the best practices of new technologies. Definitely a call back to the days of "God is in the details." If architects aspire to truly "master" their profession through knowledge and expertise, I believe they could regain the respect that they have lost. I would not abandon the goal of being the "Master Builder."

—Tom Fromholt
Principal Estimator, Messer Construction Co.
Cincinnati

In addition, the untold stories about architects with large egos that have held back their careers is a great observation. I place the responsibility of this issue firmly at the feet of our (architecture) schools in the undergraduate training. In my undergraduate education, I was told time and time again that the architect was the "author" or the "decider"; it was not until (the first day of) my master's degree that I was the introduced to this notion of the "Informed reader," which was more in my nature as a person.

Lastly, one thing you did not mention or get into specifics is the subject of project delivery systems. I think that the design-bid-build system fosters and encourages the architect to think that he or she is the master builder. The system isolates the players and leaves the architect (with the consent of the owner) to make 90 percent of the decisions upfront without the benefit of a general contractor's advice and input on costs and constructability. This is where I believe that the myth plays out in the architect’s mind. This system is archaic and belongs in the past. It leads to painful and exhaustive value engineering exercises, costing time and money to the owner, and results in less bottom-line profits for the architect. I feel that the new IPD, which was just published by the AIA California Council, gives new hope, as you said it, "to find more appropriate models for leadership in a collaborative environment."

—Jack Andersen, AIA
Newport Beach, Calif.

May I offer the observation that in addition to the groups with "massive egos" who do—and do not—accomplish much, there is also a very massive group of those with controlled egos who support and produce the documentation and other services necessary for the others to accomplish. Often those "massive egos" produce wondrous designs but need technical support to see their projects realized. To the group with "controlled egos" and high expertise, much credit needs to be given—equity is but one measure of their invaluable contribution.

—Ralph W. Liebing, RA, CSI
Senior Architect--Specifications
HIXSON, Cincinnati

You provided a valuable service to architects through this article. It is important to distribute to the schools, where the mythology is promoted.

Thank you for providing generally valuable information and perspectives to the architectural community through your articles.

—Chuck Eastman
George Institute of Technology School of Architecture
Atlanta

The problems with your statements about Master Builder are found in your own words. Yes, we all try to be a team now; but the Architect is the one responsible for all his teammates. The Owner is concerned with cost, Consultants with their specialized field, and Contractors with building with the least possible cost. I need to know everything about the project. The rest of the players are self- centered and self-serving. They often buy into the Team concept, but in the end they have tunnel vision. The liability I face every day and on every project is the same: Have I covered everything I need to?

I may not be a Master Builder in your eyes, but I am The Architect. Until you can figure a way to spread the liability around, our attitudes probably won’t change.

—Clifton N. Strickland III, AIA
Strickland Architects and Associates PC
Va. Beach, Va.

While the idea of the Master Puppeteer appeals to many of our colleagues, the image of the “Master” of anything is indeed abrasive to most other people. And the worst part is that many of our colleagues are seeing the process of integrated project delivery as a way of getting everybody else to finally “heel” and do as we say. What a pathetic image. The issue of the oversized egos and their effect on the profession and the built environment as a whole deserves a book (wait a minute, John Silber from Boston University just wrote it!).

Congratulations on your keen perception. I promise I will work to eradicate the image of the Master Builder from our lore, using instead the one of the appointed Team Captain. Much more appropriate!

—Gustavo A. Lima, AIA
Principal and Director of Construction Administration
Cannon Design, Grand Island, N.Y.

I am concerned that you are too quick to eliminate a term that is (or at least should be) a great description of what our profession is all about. Today's education and internship process is severely flawed and what we have now (as opposed to pre-NCARB days) is many young architects under 30 years old who become licensed and feel they have the knowledge and ability to run their own firm. This has created a negative discourse between architects and the rest of the construction industry.

This is not to say that a young age determines the credibility and effectiveness of an architect, but is to say that young architects get much less respect, and rightfully so. The best process for the education of an architect is the Jedi-Padawan relationship (i.e. apprenticeship). This is the path I took before ever stepping foot in a college classroom. Though I am relatively young and new to the profession (I've been in about 8.5 years), I feel I have at least another decade before I consider myself a true architect, probably another two decades. I may never reach the status of Master Builder, but I will strive for it, which will make me a better architect. The point being that the Master Builder exists and should exist as a measure of the profession; maybe not in the classical sense of the word where the architect is on site all day everyday, but in the sense that the architect knows nearly every facet of the trade. I have the same title (once I get licensed) as an architect who has been in the industry 50 years. Master Builder is the epitome of our profession. If you eliminate it, all we are is a bland group of professionals who have no distinction. I think the second oldest profession in the world deserves a little more respect.

Paraphrasing, in Louis Kahn's last lecture, a young student asked him: "How long did it take you to get as good as you are?" Kahn replied: "I'm 72, so 72 years." Louis Kahn is a great representative of the Master Builder. I think all architects should strive to that end. And through striving for that title we actually become as good as the name implies.

With all that being said, I liked your article.

—Jeffrey D. Justis, Assoc. AIA
Jupiter, Fla.

RE: Norma Sklarek, FAIA, Wins 2008 Whitney M. Young Jr. Award

I enjoyed reading the item about Ms. Sklarek’s most recent award. One notable omission from her list of accomplishments, however, was her contributions as an educator. Among other things, she taught an entry level class in “working drawings” as part of UCLA’s graduate architecture program in the late ‘70s, which I remember well, and in fact was responsible for teaching me to letter properly. Your younger readers probably won’t know what “lettering” is, just as I didn’t realize at the time that I was learning it from such a pioneer.

Congratulations, Norma!

—Robert C. Pfauth, AIA, NCARB
Principal in Charge
Hoffman LLC, Elgin, Ill.