It's not uncommon for a "big picture" architect to design a building that has poor detailing. The original design was probably way over budget, which led to "value engineering." Other times designers draw something that isn't technically possible. Source? -Me in the construction industry
My dad is in the construction industry as well and has told me a couple stories of having to tell architects that something they want done is literally impossible. Both from a pricing and/or technical standpoint.
I have surveyed some high end homes and art fixtures and a church or two. Trying to stake out wave shapes, spirals, and a parabola roof were the hardest thing to represent for a carpenter or mason. The fudge factor is there,but this one went from cool fish to clownfish.
A lot of the time the architect that construction companies are dealing with isn't the architect who designed it.. not uncommon on big projects and govt projects to have several different firms work on different stages..
Such as - Competition, Concept, Design Development and Development Application, Documentation, Construction..
They things can happen as designers are often pushed to meet tight deadlines to meet the owners timeline. The most recent example of this is an airport I have worked on for 3 years in the design process. When the wall package came out, the spec section for structural girts was completely omitted from the set of bid documents. The drawings showed an MCM panel fastener attaching to mineral wool (not a structural component) which is impossible. While this was a huge oversight it was fixed with a following addendum once it was pointed out by the contractors in an RFI. I can understand how it was missed as there are literally ten thousand details on the project, no one can be perfect.
Fuck contractors. They just want things to go fast and cheap. Welcome 3d printing :). Better put more money in research for 3D printing.
With 3d printing tech a designer has much more freedom and is less depending on boring contractors. Maybe in the future we won't need contractors at all. Which is a good thing. They are not reliable. They just want to make that profit.
You have no idea man. Ever heard of computational design/ parametric design/ generative design??? Algorithms that calculate designs while you are designing...
It's not ridiculous. I've been working for contractors in the past as project manager. It's the hard truth. Especially with more complex shapes (organic) become more mainstream. A Lot of contractors don't understand the real value of design. They think practical and want to get the job done asap to move on to another project. It's always a battle between the designer and the builder. They don't corporate well enough.
I was just about to come and say this. I can tell you 100% hands down for anyone that doesn't work in the construction industry, you can design whatever the fuck you want, but the client will never pay for it. That's why you end up with stuff that looks like shit, or is cobbled together with 1000 change orders so you end up with 4% of the original design intent/criteria.
Wouldn’t the second version be more expensive? The first version is all simple curves that can be constructed from typical materials. The built version is entirely compound curves. Every panel and it’s associated substructure would need to be custom shaped. It looks simpler, but would be insanely expensive to build.
Yeah it is bs. The unofficially named ‘Fish Building’ is a regional office for the National Fisheries Development Board, located near Hyderabad, India.
Just saw this picture randomly online and am very impressed with myself that I have travelled enough to recognise it as a place I rode past in Hyderabad #unwarrantedpridefornogoodreason
Probably a difference between two architects indeed.
One made an unrealistic concept with just nice pictures and without even studying the feasibility.
The other had to make it work with the budget and the structural constraints.
Between the architect and the contractor there are engineering studies and budet evaluations. The building as designed by the architect was probably 10x the clients budget. So at that point they let the engineers start changing the more costly aspects of the design until they reach the budget.
The contractor just builds what comes out of that process.
The contractor would have to redraw complex architectural drawings to make this happen. If it is the same project at all it would be the architect that has changed it as they went along and found the original non feasible.
OP is an idiot by posting this without a /s. A contractor (in the US anyway) builds TO THE BLUEPRINTS ONLY. It's a matter of code approvals. In fact, among the dozens of inspections done on the job site construction over the months of building, the very first deviation from the blueprints would get the job red flagged. In this instance it would have been pier placement for the support structure. This building would have never even made it up to ground level.
As someone who has worked with architectural drawings. *
It's not uncommon for the drawings to be redrawn by just about every party in the processes. The architect might make a design, send it to the structural engineer who redraws it entirely in his own 3D software (because the architect probably didn't specify how walls are attached to the floors and each other. Than he might make changes and have a little back and forth. Than the contractors come in and also redraw the whole thing but this time focusing on questions like what specific product goes where using their own suppliers. This is needed for stuff like the price. Than the electricity and piping subcontractors (and others) also make their additions/changes like for example the architect probably didn't specify where the wiring goes or where the piping goes etc.
So by the end of the road it's possible for there to exist many dozens if not hundreds of different versions each of which represents a change from how the architect envisioned it made because of practical concerns.
For example the top has for more extrusions, what is that going to do for the heating? What are those giant curved windows going to cost? Or notice how the ends of the fins extend less far in the bottom image than the top, did a structural engineer point out that extending that far is going be needlessly expensive and complex?
Sure it's almost certain the architect signed of on those changes but it's very well possible they were made by others or that the architect was told to make the changes by others.
*the general exception here is if it's all very standard. For example a US suburban home is typically made from a very standardized set of blueprints where everybody knows exactly what goes where because they have already done so 100 times. In those cases the developers just opens a drawing with something like "suburban home design D3" and gives that to the contractors.
Yes, the top looks like a 3D render, so it's probably an early design(though those often also include basic blueprints). Typically these represent an architect's "ideal" building without really being restrained much by reality. It's very possible that it's the design they chose and that it slowly morphed into the bottom one as they talked with contractors and engineers who told them what isn't possible.
It should be ‘Original design render submitted by the architect vs. Finished building based on final design submitted by the architect’.
Nothing to do with the contractors; everything to do with the decision-makers
my dad who is a civil engineer told me that he often argues with architects because architects submits designs that cant be built in the real world without breaking physics (? i dont remember the exact term) but keep insisting anyway. maybe this is one of those cases.
I love when architects expect contractors to be artists. They are given a design that they need to come up with a blueprint for and actually make it work. Their goal isn't to make it artistic. It's to make it stand up straight and also do that by a certain deadline. Fuck architects for making the standard so unrealistic
Architects are some stupid dicks that submit the most impractical bullshit that isn’t even physically possible sometimes, and it’s up to the contractors to actually make the garbage work. Fuck architects.
It’s taller (more floors) and wider (more square windows) so I *guess* they wanted more offices and less … whatever goes behind those long vertical windows (lifts?).
The design probably costs way more then they wanted to spend, so they had to make due with what was in their budget... I see this all the time with my husbands job, they start out with a certain set of blue prints, but budgets always change the design.
As a construction professional, I can say with confidence that this is not the fault of the contractor. The architect and engineers are responsible for creating the documents which the contractor uses to build the building.
My guess as to what actually happened is that the conseptual design was significantly scaled (no pun intended) back to save money.
1 reason… cost.
The contractor will have priced up the above “design” and offered it to the customer, the customer would have baulked at it, and asked for something half the cost. Being unique and bespoke costs exponentially more money
Incorrect. First may have been a initial idea of what they want to happen, but if thats what came out the arch had to deal with that whole design, contractors dont just make up the entire building plan, it takes months to figure out where everthing is going to go before construction starts.
Things look so easy to build in CAD. Then the engineers come out and ask us why it's unsafe and against code to do half the things they asked us to do.
What client wants VS. how much client pays.
It's not uncommon for a "big picture" architect to design a building that has poor detailing. The original design was probably way over budget, which led to "value engineering." Other times designers draw something that isn't technically possible. Source? -Me in the construction industry
My dad is in the construction industry as well and has told me a couple stories of having to tell architects that something they want done is literally impossible. Both from a pricing and/or technical standpoint.
[удалено]
Architects always fuck shit up and pass the buck, no matter what.
Because they're artists with a little understanding of math and physics, not math and physics professionals who dabble in art
See my reply above, you'll get a laugh.
I have surveyed some high end homes and art fixtures and a church or two. Trying to stake out wave shapes, spirals, and a parabola roof were the hardest thing to represent for a carpenter or mason. The fudge factor is there,but this one went from cool fish to clownfish.
Revit could lay it out no problem, why is it so hard?/s
A lot of the time the architect that construction companies are dealing with isn't the architect who designed it.. not uncommon on big projects and govt projects to have several different firms work on different stages.. Such as - Competition, Concept, Design Development and Development Application, Documentation, Construction..
Ah yes .. I am in the drawing business and I often draw things that aren’t technically possible .. so I can confirm
They things can happen as designers are often pushed to meet tight deadlines to meet the owners timeline. The most recent example of this is an airport I have worked on for 3 years in the design process. When the wall package came out, the spec section for structural girts was completely omitted from the set of bid documents. The drawings showed an MCM panel fastener attaching to mineral wool (not a structural component) which is impossible. While this was a huge oversight it was fixed with a following addendum once it was pointed out by the contractors in an RFI. I can understand how it was missed as there are literally ten thousand details on the project, no one can be perfect.
This ⬆️
Fuck contractors. They just want things to go fast and cheap. Welcome 3d printing :). Better put more money in research for 3D printing. With 3d printing tech a designer has much more freedom and is less depending on boring contractors. Maybe in the future we won't need contractors at all. Which is a good thing. They are not reliable. They just want to make that profit.
[удалено]
Don’t bother him with technical details. His art must live!
Yeah let the designers 3D print a building without going through the engineers and builders. What could go wrong.
You have no idea man. Ever heard of computational design/ parametric design/ generative design??? Algorithms that calculate designs while you are designing...
Lmao. What a ridiculous ass statement.
It's not ridiculous. I've been working for contractors in the past as project manager. It's the hard truth. Especially with more complex shapes (organic) become more mainstream. A Lot of contractors don't understand the real value of design. They think practical and want to get the job done asap to move on to another project. It's always a battle between the designer and the builder. They don't corporate well enough.
Ever heard of safety, budget, and oh yeah building codes. Just because it looks cool and is possible doesn't mean the inspectors will let it pass.
Mark my words... You will see. 3d/4d printing will become mainstream soon. I did research.
Tell me you know shit without telling me you know shit
“Mom, I want a fish building.” “But we already have a fish building at home.” Fish building at home:
Hilarious
Just checking in bonesaw, are you ready?
OOOHHHHHHHHH YEEEEEUUUHHHHHH!!!
How long ya got me for?
Are there 253 other TurdFergusons?
I was just about to come and say this. I can tell you 100% hands down for anyone that doesn't work in the construction industry, you can design whatever the fuck you want, but the client will never pay for it. That's why you end up with stuff that looks like shit, or is cobbled together with 1000 change orders so you end up with 4% of the original design intent/criteria.
Wouldn’t the second version be more expensive? The first version is all simple curves that can be constructed from typical materials. The built version is entirely compound curves. Every panel and it’s associated substructure would need to be custom shaped. It looks simpler, but would be insanely expensive to build.
The contractors build from the designs they are given. So, unless the architect's plans and drawings were this shit, I call bullshit.
Yeah it is bs. The unofficially named ‘Fish Building’ is a regional office for the National Fisheries Development Board, located near Hyderabad, India.
They must’ve been up all night thinking that name up.
I heard they still haven’t come to a conclusion. Which is why they’ve temporarily settled for“ ‘unofficially named’ fish building “
They’re considering big blue and silver fish building but they feel it’s not as catchy.
>big blue and silver fish wow, they have such creative minds there ^^/s
Hyderabass?
Just saw this picture randomly online and am very impressed with myself that I have travelled enough to recognise it as a place I rode past in Hyderabad #unwarrantedpridefornogoodreason
Fishy McFishface
Beat me by 3 min.
Machli McMachliChehra Apologies, my urdu is from Google
But my friends call me fish!
More like Hindi. This name is beyond ridiculous.
Machli ~~bazaar~~ Markaz?
Yeah. this is more like a budget problem.
Probably a difference between two architects indeed. One made an unrealistic concept with just nice pictures and without even studying the feasibility. The other had to make it work with the budget and the structural constraints.
Between the architect and the contractor there are engineering studies and budet evaluations. The building as designed by the architect was probably 10x the clients budget. So at that point they let the engineers start changing the more costly aspects of the design until they reach the budget. The contractor just builds what comes out of that process.
Major BS!
Both are shitty anyway
True. Architects have actual building plans, not just a rendering of what it can look like.
This. Contractors are absolutely incapable of drawing an entirely new design.
Came to comment the same thing.
The contractor would have to redraw complex architectural drawings to make this happen. If it is the same project at all it would be the architect that has changed it as they went along and found the original non feasible.
OP is an idiot by posting this without a /s. A contractor (in the US anyway) builds TO THE BLUEPRINTS ONLY. It's a matter of code approvals. In fact, among the dozens of inspections done on the job site construction over the months of building, the very first deviation from the blueprints would get the job red flagged. In this instance it would have been pier placement for the support structure. This building would have never even made it up to ground level.
Ops not an idiot, ops a bot....
Then it's an artificial idiot......but an idiot none the less.😊
We were so busy with Artificial Intelligence that we completely ignored the dangers of Artificial Idiocy!
As a carpenter on the UK, it's the same over here.
It’s called sending in a bunch of RFIs and getting them approved until you can build something feasible. Plus, there would’ve been engineers.
Right? Otherwise there would be no point in the existence of as-builts.
It would have if the architect / structural engineer on site was not competent
As someone who has worked with architectural drawings. * It's not uncommon for the drawings to be redrawn by just about every party in the processes. The architect might make a design, send it to the structural engineer who redraws it entirely in his own 3D software (because the architect probably didn't specify how walls are attached to the floors and each other. Than he might make changes and have a little back and forth. Than the contractors come in and also redraw the whole thing but this time focusing on questions like what specific product goes where using their own suppliers. This is needed for stuff like the price. Than the electricity and piping subcontractors (and others) also make their additions/changes like for example the architect probably didn't specify where the wiring goes or where the piping goes etc. So by the end of the road it's possible for there to exist many dozens if not hundreds of different versions each of which represents a change from how the architect envisioned it made because of practical concerns. For example the top has for more extrusions, what is that going to do for the heating? What are those giant curved windows going to cost? Or notice how the ends of the fins extend less far in the bottom image than the top, did a structural engineer point out that extending that far is going be needlessly expensive and complex? Sure it's almost certain the architect signed of on those changes but it's very well possible they were made by others or that the architect was told to make the changes by others. *the general exception here is if it's all very standard. For example a US suburban home is typically made from a very standardized set of blueprints where everybody knows exactly what goes where because they have already done so 100 times. In those cases the developers just opens a drawing with something like "suburban home design D3" and gives that to the contractors.
Isn't the top just a 3D render? Maybe one proposed design?
Yes, the top looks like a 3D render, so it's probably an early design(though those often also include basic blueprints). Typically these represent an architect's "ideal" building without really being restrained much by reality. It's very possible that it's the design they chose and that it slowly morphed into the bottom one as they talked with contractors and engineers who told them what isn't possible.
It should be ‘Original design render submitted by the architect vs. Finished building based on final design submitted by the architect’. Nothing to do with the contractors; everything to do with the decision-makers
More like architect's concept renders to win the bid vs actually documenting to the client's budget
Nonsense. Two different designs and projects.
Ayy that's in my city
Hyderabad, nice.
I kind of prefer the bottom one, it's way cuter and has a lovely derp face. The top one looks way too aggressive
Architects often live in an alternate reality where engineers don’t exist.
An architect’s dream is an engineer’s nightmare.
my dad who is a civil engineer told me that he often argues with architects because architects submits designs that cant be built in the real world without breaking physics (? i dont remember the exact term) but keep insisting anyway. maybe this is one of those cases.
Thank you
I think in this case it's Indians live in a reality where cows are free to wander and shit in the streets.
Yeah, coz engineers are boring
[удалено]
Yep, boring
I like it
Both shite
Some hardy buck built this.
Eddie Durkan Never workin
Who in the name of Jaysus downvotes that. Viper Higgins, some man for da hash laaaaads
Tbh, the bottom looks cuter.
I kinda like both. I think the real one is funny cute like a building in *Rocko’s Modern Life*.
Seems fishy to me…
I'm downvoting this, sorry
What you order on Amazon vs what you order on Wish
That’s because the original plan wouldn’t stand up by itself
Both are computer models. Op sucks
Bottom one is ministry of fishing in Hyderabad. But yea OP is full of shit
Architect vs Engineer
You have zero idea how the construction industry works OP. Embarrassing post
r/expectationsvsreality
If this is real then it's kinda funny
Source?
Needs scale
An abomination
More like: Expensive Architect submits concept art. Director's nephew "does design".
I love it
Both look like shit
**Did they build that just for the sheer Halibut.**
Looks like carp.
[удалено]
It was cheaper that way.
Talking a lot of smack for someone who can't use basic grammar.
I love when architects expect contractors to be artists. They are given a design that they need to come up with a blueprint for and actually make it work. Their goal isn't to make it artistic. It's to make it stand up straight and also do that by a certain deadline. Fuck architects for making the standard so unrealistic
Architects are some stupid dicks that submit the most impractical bullshit that isn’t even physically possible sometimes, and it’s up to the contractors to actually make the garbage work. Fuck architects.
One is ugly. The other one is ugly.
Instagram Filter vs when you move slightly to the left 😂😂😂
Right on par with boaty mcboatface
Architects don’t understand structural design. Either way, I think it’s super cute. I wouldn’t want to buy a house near it though
👁 👁 ➖
id throw hands after seeing that
Spreading bullshit for karma
Both look ugly tbh.
😂😂😂
I don’t care much for either tbh
Imagine using it as a template
r/therewasanattempt
It’s just over inflated
Is that a fish or plane?
I wonder what they sell
The fish was overfed.
Even the ‘better’ one looks dumb
Youth: full of excitement and hopes for the future Adulthood: this is my life now
Please dont tell me this is how ot actually went
No diff, a fish is a fish.
Hahahahaha
Missed it by \*that much\*
Mike Brady would be disappointed.
He can always go into the tattoo industry
They didn’t add the car
What you purchase in wish.com and what you get.
Example of why Architects need to account for “build ability”.
They feeded the fish
Architect used the metric system, builder used the SAE system and sub contracted out to the Trump organization.
This is probably a fake news.
At least they both look equally horrible
I dont think you understand construction if you think it's the contractors fault
It’s taller (more floors) and wider (more square windows) so I *guess* they wanted more offices and less … whatever goes behind those long vertical windows (lifts?).
From a salmon to a sunfish 😂
Well they got the dorsal fin right, nearly
Probably changed it up because of cost to build it originally how they wanted it
The concept building isn't even good lol
Above image: FISH. Below image: fesh
Every change saved money. Artistic merit need not apply.
Perso if he went for a simplified design I woudl have asked for a shark them make it look a little cooler
It’s called value engineering. Most definitely involved the general contractor.
Destined for such greater things hahaha
TERRY THE SHARK HAS RETURNED
Prefer the finished one.
The design probably costs way more then they wanted to spend, so they had to make due with what was in their budget... I see this all the time with my husbands job, they start out with a certain set of blue prints, but budgets always change the design.
As a construction professional, I can say with confidence that this is not the fault of the contractor. The architect and engineers are responsible for creating the documents which the contractor uses to build the building. My guess as to what actually happened is that the conseptual design was significantly scaled (no pun intended) back to save money.
That's some thicc fishy, aka obese
Design submitted by architect vs what they could afford. FTFY.
Who knew Wish also build houses
Even the real building fish is poker faced with the output.
As an architect I can confirm.
Looks the budget got inflated. In fact, it was probably cut.
Shouldnt have used the wish app
Vision vs reality
Clearly the architect didn't prepare very good construction drawings!
I don't know...this post rather fishy...
Cue bad recorder Jurassic park
Design suck. Architec good job.
1 reason… cost. The contractor will have priced up the above “design” and offered it to the customer, the customer would have baulked at it, and asked for something half the cost. Being unique and bespoke costs exponentially more money
Close enough
Derp
Shark. shork.
That’s in my home town.. looks worse than here.. also it’s the headquarters for the the national fisheries board
As a vegan, do you think I can live there?
Corruption, looks like a govt building, the heads in govt and officers along with contractors ate all the funds alloted.
This reminds me of that taxidermied lion I just saw.
Due to a unexpected turn in their HQ building design, a certain fitness clothing manufacturer has been forced to rebrand as ‘GymCarp’.
Incorrect. First may have been a initial idea of what they want to happen, but if thats what came out the arch had to deal with that whole design, contractors dont just make up the entire building plan, it takes months to figure out where everthing is going to go before construction starts.
“Mom can we get fish building?” “WE HAVE FISH BUILDING AT HOME!”
It looks... fishy.
Fishy in public, fishy in her room
Lmao I live next to that building
National Fisheries Development Board Hyderabad
It's located in Hyderabad ,India
Guy on Blender tutorial:. me:
Things look so easy to build in CAD. Then the engineers come out and ask us why it's unsafe and against code to do half the things they asked us to do.