It is difficult to measure, observing a completed building, the amount of work, resources and knowledge that were deposited there. All decisions made influence in some way the performance of the building and its durability. As for the execution details, not all architects allow the dissemination of their constructive solutions. There are professionals, however, who go against the grain and focus on disseminating knowledge, identifying common design decisions that can lead to pathologies (such as leaks, rot, corrosion, mold and odors) and more economical ways to avoid them. This is the idea behind Building Science Fight Club, an Instagram profile whose purpose is to explain some issues and critically analyze certain constructive details and ways of installing materials. We spoke with Christine Williamson, creator of the platform, about her journey. See the full interview below:
Eduardo Souza (ArchDaily): How did the idea for the instagram account and website come about and what is its main purpose?
Christine Williamson (Building Science Fight Club): I started Building Science Fight Club to informally share information about construction and detailing with friends from architecture school who were working in more traditional design roles. Instagram made this really easy: I’d just snap a photo while on a construction site and mark it up or add a quick sketch to explain the technical principles at play. For me, it was a low-risk, low-stress way of improving how I communicated technical information (which is my job as a consultant). And for my peers, it was an opportunity to ask questions and share observations that they otherwise wouldn’t if the same conversation were happening on a real job site in front of their boss, the general contractor, or their client.
The purpose of BSFC is education and camaraderie. There’s no corporate team or formal brand strategy or anything, and it’s not sponsored by any manufacturer. It’s just me… and everyone who reads, comments, shares, and otherwise participates in the conversation. Apprenticeship has always been a really important part of architecture and I view Building Science Fight Club as a contribution to that tradition.
ES: What is the role of well-resolved details in an architectural project?
CW: Well-resolved details lead to more intelligent risk-management, and – perhaps surprisingly – greater creative control. I view architecture as a language and building science as one aspect of its basic grammar. Architects often approach building science the way a traveler might approach learning a foreign language in advance of a trip abroad—they muddle through by memorizing a few key phrases, and they acquire a few more through experience. But having a real conversation and expressing original thoughts requires actually learning the language, mastering its grammar and developing a vocabulary. It’s the same with design:
With a solid understanding of applied physics and a larger construction vocabulary, architects can design more creatively and more boldly. Some architectural talents may be mysterious, but technical competence can be taught.
ES: What are the main points that you observe that architects and builders usually make mistakes or are unaware of in a construction?
CW: In my experience, most construction mistakes are the result of poor sequencing, and, on the design detailing side, a poor understanding of sequencing. Sequencing is basically just the order of operations for building something, and the general contractor’s entire job is to get the sequencing right: to assign each part of the project to the correct subcontractor, making sure there are no gaps (or overlaps) in each trade’s scope of work, and to then coordinate that work in the most efficient way possible.
Failures (leaks, rot, mold, corrosion, poor indoor air quality) are common when one trade can’t properly complete their installation because an adjacent trade came too early (or too late) to detail the connection as designed.
Architects, for their part, can make this type of coordination work easier by designing details that minimize dependencies and re-mobilizations, allowing individual trades to work independently with minimal coordination. Architects, of course, don’t have to do this. Means and methods are squarely the responsibility of the general contractor. However, when architects have a good understanding of sequencing, it makes them better partners to their contractors. It also minimizes re-work, change orders, and RFIs – it really does make it less likely that a failure will occur in the first place, and it just generally reduces conflict and stress among people who would probably much rather not fight their way through the Construction Administration phase of every project.
ES: How should a critical analysis of a constructive detail be carried out so that it is really efficient in the given context in which the building is located? Is spending more time designing and refining the project important, or are there things that will only be resolved on site?
CW: Careful design is an investment. Failing to invest in good design (for example by not working with an architect at all) often leads to homes being both larger and less functional. Properly understood, good design is really an exercise in efficiency!
All projects have constraints related to cost, constructability, aesthetics, climate, material availability, and owner preferences related to occupancy, maintenance, and comfort, among many other things. Good design involves working within those constraints efficiently and responsibly in a way that produces the best outcome for any given project and client. We tend to appreciate this when it comes to things like spatial planning, daylighting, and the selection of finishes, but it’s also true when detailing the enclosure. Excellent indoor air quality, thermal comfort, and acoustic comfort all fundamentally affect the character of the spaces we create. And energy efficiency and durability affect how those spaces are maintained. There will always be details that must be resolved on site, but a careful consideration of the enclosure throughout the entire design process is an enormously important value that architects provide. The issue is often that producing that value requires a substantial investment on the part of architects (in their own education, and in actually detailing the building), and our clients aren’t always inclined to pay for that. I don’t have any special insight or solution for this, except for us to keep doing what most of us already do: present our best case for this kind of investment in design and then make the most of the resources we have.
ES: Along with the detailing, comes the part of the correct specification of products and materials. Can you talk a little about the importance of this?
CW: Obviously product selection is important, but more general design decisions among categories of product (rather than specific products) tends to matter more for architects. One thing I encourage architects to consider when choosing products is the delta between perfect installation and typical installation. The less dependent our details are on workmanship, the better. This is not to suggest that we should have low expectations of the trades, but it is simply true that as soon as construction starts, architects have less control over the work.
ES: What is it like to be an architect who doesn't exactly live by designing buildings? What other possibilities are there in our profession?
CW: I still design buildings! Although I’m not yet a licensed architect. (I’m still working my way through the AREs). My role in the design process is just more targeted, and that suits me well. I consider myself really lucky to have found this thing that I love that allows me to work with unbelievably talented architects on beautiful and interesting projects.
