In most interior fit-out, builders only need to align major or basic elements – like walls, floors, and ceilings. As the sophistication of their commissions ratchet up, these architectural alignments become more demanding. Builders of high-end and luxury construction are all too familiar with demanding architectural alignments that architects insist are non-negotiable. Many of these design intents are imposing – resource heavy – and even unreasonable or untenable.

It’s not unusual to see a bath design elevation with stone walls, where all the vertical joints align with the floor joints. All the fixture controls also align with the stone joints, and all have the same offsets. When units are batch designed, layouts can be done with graduated story-sticks – both vertical and horizontal – intended as a template. A great theory until you put it into practice at any volume.

This is owing to layout discrepancies, and program conflict – chiefly behind the wall or below the floor, none of which seems to be taken into consideration by the designer who has not taken the trouble to coordinate his design with MEPs and structure anywhere close to what is required to accommodate such demanding design intent. It’s also owing to the nature of blocking and support work, fasteners, even insulation, that can create misalignments. 

Not all architectural alignments are as tricky in fit-out, as they are in general layouts: aligning walls, window and door head/sill data (horizontal alignments) are more easily achievable, and should be practiced or enforced. Rather than installing work in the best possible location, many architects are adamant that program conflicts be resolved to accommodate the alignments – exclusively for aesthetics, and nothing to do with practicality. For example, a large welded steel duct, water riser, or steel member,  might need to be cut into, and offset – often a huge undertaking – just to make seams line up. Such work is truly ‘change-work’ that may also impact the schedule. If the alignments are in the contract drawings, the architect will expect the contractor to do whatever it takes to achieve them – no matter the cost.

At a certain point, trying to achieve onerous architectural alignments becomes untenable – the schedule falters, and the project team simply gives up. It turns out that ownership is much less concerned with what they perceive as an architect’s quibbling in deference to making schedule and budget.

If resources are unlimited, and a project is time and material, a contractor could run up quite the backlog of change-work trying to mollify a designer. Otherwise, contractors should be leery of programs with intended alignments that bode ill for their production team. All such alignments can be discerned in the contract drawings. Contractors should qualify their bids by stating that they will endeavor to achieve as many alignments as possible without impacting budget and schedule, lest they are put out in to the weeds and woods to find expensive fixes on their own dime.