I'll offer up a little bit here, because I agree with fattony in that all buildings are value engineered from the get go. They all start with a budget and a desired outcome. The architect is then charged with designing a building that meets those goals. Certain SF of leasable space, or certain number of units, all under this estimated budget.
The architect designs their building with that budget in mind, and thinks they are presenting something that works. They try their best to include certain touches, or things that harken back to this, or pays homage to that, or maybe just adds a bit of whimsy. Whether at the end of the day anyone else likes it is a different story, they are trying to squeeze some personality into a building.
The VE I'm usually referring to is what happens next. The SD or DD docs go out for estimates that come back too high. Then all the personality starts to get scraped away, and we end up with the VE'd to death final products often referred to.
I don't think anyone here is under the assumption that an architect is hired and given a blank canvas and a blank check and told to "create Michelangelo". The design from the get go is informed by the realities of the budget, the cost of labor and materials, and the ROI for their boss (the developer.) They try to do the best with what is available, and then they open themselves up to our keyboard critics on boards like this, and Globe comment sections. All the while doing their best to stand behind their creation, despite it often times not really reflecting their original vision.
That's what I mean by VE, but that's just me.
