Standing up for the artichokes, err, architects here, on account of because I are one, and I have a piece of paper somewhere around here from the State of Washington, US of A, proclaiming that I can say that ...
In the twilight years of my professional life, one of the tasks I've taken on from time to time is participation in a pair of reviews required by law if funds from said State are to be spent on public projects. Early on (design is mostly thought-out, but changeable) is the "Value Analysis / Value Engineering" review, when a team of consultants gets a week to engineer all the value out of a project that they can. [Well, that's what the proponents think.] We typically come up with a bunch of little things, and a dozen or so big items, that could help the project go better, from "why are you putting X room here?" to "and what could go wrong if ... happened?"
Just finished a "Constructability Review" of a Big elementary school. You would kind of think, that for a project about a month away from bidding tender, that the structural and drainage design of the open-air courtyard in the middle of the school, above all the air-handling equipment, would be figured out ... nope. Of course not. And, each of the design disciplines had a note referring to another discipline's drawings for answers to things they should have figured out. Although, who wouldn't expect to find the waterproofing details in the landscape architect's part of the documents ... me, for one.
All of which brings me back to a professor's comment about a classmate's explanation of his design: "That's like making chicken soup with fish"
