Re: Wait ... What?
To those that are doubtful about an architect having any say in how a building is used, I have experienced this.
Working for a multinational company in the UK, at its head office -- a large site with multiple buildings separated by rectangular grass plots with tarmac paths around them. Complaints about having to walk further in the rain were ignored and when diagonal foot-worn paths formed, bushes or flowerbeds were inserted to prevent them being used "at the insistence of the site architect".
Same company, fancy new building for office work and IT supporting research.
Untinted glass in all directions, structural support at the core, so small number of slim pillars, no blinds, no opening windows, A/C underspecified (by the architect - who was informed of expected load), desk layout specified by architect and fixed in place, partitions between workstations chest-high when sitting, ceiling lights placed so that if they were on (single switch per floor) most screens suffered reflections. A single small, unventilated cupboard for coats for 40 or so people on each floor.
When users introduced coathangers, local sunshades, or layout changes we were forced to remove or reverse them after a visit from the architect. Management told us that said person had a contractual right to control "all features of the design".
The company was swallowed by a bigger fish, perhaps with more competent (or at least more aggressive) managers, while we were still struggling with the problems. The site was sold for housing and all buildings demolished.
Biting the hand that feeds IT
