Difference between Architect, Arch. technician etc...?

deadl0ck

Hi All,

I want to get planning permission and need plans drawn up, and I want to be able to build from the plans.

I have a few ideas as to what I want, and I'd like some suggestions/ideas from whomever I employ...

Anyhoo...I've rang round a lot of "Architects" in the golden pages, but there seems to be loads of different types:

Architects
Architectual Technicians
Architectural Technologists
Draughtsmen

I'm sure there are more also.

What's the difference between all of these and who shoud I use to get the plans drawn up?

I want someone with good ideas as to how I could improve on the design, not just do exactally what I tell him/her....

Any suggestions would be great !

Also - any ideas on a ballpark price I should expect to pay ??

deadl0ck

[Bump] Anybody got any ideas ??

kadman

There is a boardie here that will help you out,

pm me

kadman

galwaydude18

Kadman is on about me here! I have 9 years experience designing houses and dealing with planning applications. Where is your site situated? I may be interested in helping you it you would like? Pm me if you do!

Mellor

galwaydude18 wrote:

Kadman is on about me here! I have 9 years experience designing houses and dealing with planning applications. Where is your site situated? I may be interested in helping you it you would like? Pm me if you do!

Just out of curiosity galwaydude, which of the above heading do you fall under.

I'll help clear it up for you.

Architects: This is the guy who looks after the aesthetics of a building. The shape of the finished product. Also the areas of floor layouts, rooms etc. In a large job there is alot to tweak, but a house is straight forward. Unless you are looking for a very unusual house (is makes passers stop and scratch their heads). Architects an designers, but their construction knowledge isn't complete.

Architectual Technicians/Technologists: He deals with the construction of a building, turning the ideas of the architect into something that is buildable (thats if it is possible, not always the case). A technologist has a very wide knowledge range when it comes to construction, materials, methods and detailed design are his areas. In the past a graduate (from the diploma courses) was a technician, and after a set amount of experience and passing professional exams became a technologist, but now degree courses are available, and graduates of the same will be considered technologists.

Draughtsmen: His job was to draw accurate drawings of existing drawings or sketch plans. For example, the design team had the plans ready for planning, as you probably know 6 copies are required, so instead of the architect re-drawing them, a draftsman was called in. This also applied to small changes in a drawing, basically copying the parts that stayed the same. With the widespread use of digital drawing and plotting, draftsmen are less used recently. And so they became cad technicians. Transfering small changes to all editions of drawings.

So I hope that helps you. Obviously an arctitect will cost the most, do you need one, does the budget allow it. Do you want a nice traditional house based on your design and improved or a whole new design from scratch with very unusual features.

Wow sorry its so long.
Mellor

deadl0ck

Hi Mellor.
Thanks for the great descriptions - really helps a lot.
Just the descriptions I was looking for !

Sonnenblumen

A very important missing point: only the Architect can certify the Building, ie that it construction complies with the relevant building regs and most importantly design for which planning was approved and/or any applicable planning conditions !!

Also a house that is poorly designed is a waste of space, but also a house that is poorly constructed will also prove to be a waste of space. Important to distinguish between good design and good build, rarely hand in hand, but good build is probably more common now than good design, thats probably due to tighter regs. Unfortunately design is still lagging behind.

Too many buildings constructed from planning compliant drawings rather than designed with a purpose!

S

Mellor

Sonnenblumen wrote:

A very important missing point: only the Architect can certify the Building, ie that it construction complies with the relevant building regs and most importantly design for which planning was approved and/or any applicable planning conditions !!

Well thats one thing that is being looked at for changing soon. Might not happen for a while but the RIAI and CIAT should really sort it out for certain elements. Makes sense too. The architect signs off on the construction, which he didn't detail/design and probably doesn't fully understand.
Domestic construction doesn't need architectural certification does it. I may be wrong but alot of homes are built without an architect. Various required parties (eg engineers) certify there own work.

Sonnenblumen

Mellor wrote:

Well thats one thing that is being looked at for changing soon. Might not happen for a while but the RIAI and CIAT should really sort it out for certain elements. Makes sense too. The architect signs off on the construction, which he didn't detail/design and probably doesn't fully understand.
Domestic construction doesn't need architectural certification does it. I may be wrong but alot of homes are built without an architect. Various required parties (eg engineers) certify there own work.

I sense a cynical view of what are Architects and what they can/cannot do. Like many professions, there are good and bad role models but I think they deserve more credit than your post suggests.

"Alot of homes are built without an architect", more true in the past but just as vaild today as it was then, and Reason Numero Uno why this country has had such a weak track record for good house design. Fortunately things are improving and the Celtic Tiger has provided great stimulus for people to be more adventurous about house design and increasingly architects are commissioned to realise the dream house.

muffler

Sonnenblumen wrote:

A very important missing point: only the Architect can certify the Building, ie that it construction complies with the relevant building regs and most importantly design for which planning was approved and/or any applicable planning conditions !!

I think the OP was referring to a house and if thats the case then the architect has a lot of competition from engineers and technicians

Dirk Gently

A technician or technologist will have no problem drawing up plans for you which will comply with the building regs and pass the planning process but they will need to be certified by an architect. I'm a diploma level technician myself and building is about to start on an extension for my parents house. While I designed it and done all the drawings, I still had to get an architect I know to sign the drawing off before the corporation would accept it. He basically put his name to it and it got passed no problem. I've been told that I can inspect the building myself at foundation, dpc and roof level along with the corpo inspector but at the end the architect is going to have to give the final cert of compliance.

I would imagine that anyone who advertises themselves as a technician or a technologist will have an architect associate who will certify the drawing so I wouldn’t worry to much about getting the drawing done by a technician once he offers the full package of doing the drawings, getting the drawing certified, carrying out inspections and giving a final cert of compliance at the end. They wouldn’t be in business if they couldn’t provide those services. Just make sure you ask who ever does it if they can approve the drawing and give the cert of compliance at the end.

Sonnenblumen

muffler wrote:

I think the OP was referring to a house and if thats the case then the architect has a lot of competition from engineers and technicians

The key point is that the Architect, Engineer etc are part of a Team and should seek to work in harmony and not competition.

Do Technicians have professional indemnity? Which is probably another reason why a Technician would not certify a House.

twenty8

I was recently in the same boat as you. Looking around to see who I could get to design my house. I met a few architects etc and they all sounded fine however the cheapest RIAI approved architect was quoting over 10% of the total build cost. My house ended up 3,200 sq ft - he would have received over €40,000!!!

I was not going to spent that level of money on the design so I sourced an engineer who also had architectural qualifications. I also went into Easons and bought a ton of books on design etc. My wife spent a long time doing a layout of the house and how she wanted it to flow etc. Once that was decided we went to the engineer who prepared the house for us. It probably took about 4 – 5 months longer that if we had gone directly to the architect but it was also €36,000 cheaper!!!

Just to note – there was a lot of negotiation between what was possible and what we wanted but that was the fun part of it. No pain no gain. You should also remember that an architect designs houses from an aesthetic point of view. They may be completely impractical to build. When we got builder quotes they all asked was it an engineer design or an architect design.

We ended up with a house that we think we will love. The builder moved on site last week – fingers crossed now!!

Sonnenblumen wrote:

A very important missing point: only the Architect can certify the Building, ie that it construction complies with the relevant building regs and most importantly design for which planning was approved and/or any applicable planning conditions !!

S

For houses I do not believe that this is true. Our engineer can sign off and certify the house and ensure that all building regs and planning are all complied with.

Endymion

The above reply is probably the best reply in the thread. You need an architect to certify your home, and an engineer/ highly experience builder to tell you what you can actually be built. An engineer who can certify/get his work certified is definitely the way to go if you want to save money. All it coems down to is making sure you meet aload of (ever changing) critieria.

Forget building off an architects plans. In fact once the builder/engineer gets involved the plans often completely change.

deadl0ck

Excellent infor guys thanks!

By the way - how much should I expect to spend on the build (ballpark figure) ?
I'm thinking 2 storey house between 2,000 - 2,500 square feet.

I know it's a hard question to answer, but any approximate figures would be great

Endymion

twenty8 wrote:

For houses I do not believe that this is true. Our engineer can sign off and certify the house and ensure that all building regs and planning are all complied with.

Sorry missed that. It is true to an extent, however people with architectural degrees arn't the only ones that can get a certified. Normally an engineer wouldn't be able to sign off on a house.

muffler

there are a lot of technicians here in Donegal who sign off on everything - plans, supervision etc. What its down to is 2 things - 10 years min. experience and Professional Indemity.

sunnysoutheast

A few points from our experience:

* You will usually need to employ (whether through your architect or building contractor) a structural engineer to size the foundations, RSJs etc - this is where you may have divergence from the "vision" presented by your architect and this will almost always be an extra cost (plus the dreaded 21% VAT).
* We had an architect manage the planning process on our behalf and also draw up the tender package for builder submission. We didn't have the architect project manage or supervise the build for us - having said that we don't have many unusual features in our design and have contracted for a watertight shell build only.
* At a simplistic level the building contract can be based on "value of work done - May 06 - cumulative 150k" or "completed stage payments - e.g. ground floor blockwork". We have a chartered surveyor signing off each stage for us whereupon we release the funds to the builder (this can also be used for bank stage payments if appropriate) plus the final compliance cert. I believe that many surveyors won't deal with self-managed/direct-labour projects.
* When you have a very early draft of your plans I'd suggest you start sending them to UFH suppliers, plumbers, sparks etc. to get an idea of costs.

SSE

Mellor

Sonnenblumen wrote:

I sense a cynical view of what are Architects and what they can/cannot do. Like many professions, there are good and bad role models but I think they deserve more credit than your post suggests.

"Alot of homes are built without an architect", more true in the past but just as vaild today as it was then, and Reason Numero Uno why this country has had such a weak track record for good house design. Fortunately things are improving and the Celtic Tiger has provided great stimulus for people to be more adventurous about house design and increasingly architects are commissioned to realise the dream house.

Sorry, was rushing that post and wasn't clear in my point. Supposed to highlight BUILT a little more. The architect designs the appearance of the house. But alot of time, basic construction is ignored. This is where the technician or engineer comes in to fix it up. I've worked with some very good architects whose building/construction knowledge is very adaptable. But this extra knowledge is not thought during the 5 years education, and sadly I've met architects who have be working for years who couldn't even begin to understand the technical drawing that he was certifying. Idealy knowledge would be both worlds, but that can then hold back each other.



Just out of curiosity, to the original poster, are you looking for somebody to get you through planning and design stages, and you project manage various jobs yourself. Or do you want to give the brief to a team and get a house in a number of months.

Kashkai

I engaged a RIAI registered Architect to design my house extension of 1,100 sq feet as I'd heard horror stories about rogue Architects. Well if the guy I got is anything to go by, I'd have been better off with one of the "rogues". He initially presented us with a plan that we liked but after two months of him tinkering with it, he told us that it wouldn't work and he then presented us with sonething that looked like it should be in Star Wars, all angles and a gull wing style roof. I checked with a friend in the Council's planning Department and she told me that there was no way on earth that the Council would pass something that was so out of character with the rural area that I live in. When I told the Architect this, he got all stroppy and said if I wanted a bog standard house, there were numerous design your own home books in Easons.

I ended up getting one of these books and as I'd been pretty good at Technical drawing in school, I ended up drafting my own plans which were passed by the Council. Work started two weeks ago and the builder has now finished the foundations. Neither the Council or the builder have had any problems with my plans so if you are up for it, why not have a go at trying to design your own home? My house is a bungalow and the extension is out to the back, side and to the front with a bend in this part to follow the site boundary. You can engage an engineer to oversee the build if you want and to certify the finished product. However, don't be frightened into thinking you need a RIAI Architect as there are plenty of unregistered Architects, Engineers and Draftsmen out there who can do the job as well if not better.

On a separate note, I know there will be replies that I could have followed the RIAI's grieveance procedure but who trusts a body that polices itself??

Finally, one of the guys who works for me also engaged a RIAI Architect and even after paying him 20,000, he disappeared when he was needed to sort out discrepancies in his plans that came to light when construction commenced. When he was tracked down, he was too busy to sort out the problems and despite threats to report him, his response was "go ahead, they (RIAI) won't touch me".

vallo

I engaged an architect team for a kitchen extension out the back a few years ago. The first few designs they came up with were just plain silly and totally out of keeping with the existing house. After a few failed attempts at coming up with something reasonable, we drew out more or less what we wanted and got them to draw up accurate drawings based on that. They did a good job preparing everything for tender, but when it came to details we found more than a few cut-and-paste errors. They visited twice to inspect, but only took a very cursory look.
Overall, the architect caused more hassle than they were worth.
For me, the proof of the pudding is that for our current build, we got an architect technician to draw up plans for pp and got a structural engineer to spec the job. It is going great and I really don't feel that we are missing anything not having an architect's vision for the whole project!

deadl0ck

ust out of curiosity, to the original poster, are you looking for somebody to get you through planning and design stages, and you project manage various jobs yourself. Or do you want to give the brief to a team and get a house in a number of months.

Not sure as of yet, to be honest.

I'm thinking of just getting through planning and then Project managing it myself, but we'll see.

Thanks guys for the other feedback !

kadman

In my experience, architects deal with the concept of a design. Engineers , technicians, technologists and draftsmen deal with the reality of the design, and ultimately make it buildable.

kadman

Mellor

kadman wrote:

In my experience, architects deal with the concept of a design. Engineers , technicians, technologists and draftsmen deal with the reality of the design, and ultimately make it buildable.

kadman

Same point as I made a few posts back.
Concept is important on large developments and buildings. But on a domestic level planning and buildability are alot more important. Esp. were it is being project managed by owner.

tred

deadl0ck wrote:

Hi All,

I want to get planning permission and need plans drawn up, and I want to be able to build from the plans.

I have a few ideas as to what I want, and I'd like some suggestions/ideas from whomever I employ...

Anyhoo...I've rang round a lot of "Architects" in the golden pages, but there seems to be loads of different types:

Architects
Architectual Technicians
Architectural Technologists
Draughtsmen

I'm sure there are more also.

What's the difference between all of these and who shoud I use to get the plans drawn up?

I want someone with good ideas as to how I could improve on the design, not just do exactally what I tell him/her....

Any suggestions would be great !

Also - any ideas on a ballpark price I should expect to pay ??

First priority. A local councillor with years of experience and who knows the development plan inside and out arrange a meeting and get talking. Dependning on location, you might not neeed to pay a couple of K for an architect. In some scenic parts of the country, once u have a housing need , you can only build certain types of houses, like dormers or 1.5 story houses etc. To be quiet honest i have dealt with both, and i was hit harder in the pocket wiht the Architect, but if you ask me, he didnt know as much about the development plan as he should..

Sonnenblumen

This debate can rage for ever, ultimately professional indemnity is where the buck stops. Com cert can only be provided by Architect, and I would say be mindful of cosy associations. Ultimately all inputs must be judged on their own merits, I would never ask a Blocklayer to design me a house no more than I would ask an engineer to design a garden. That said there can be great differences (not always skill differences) amongst the shortlist.

Will you ask your carpenter to design your kitchen, probably not, but likewise I wouldn't ask a technician either. Draughtsmen are what it says they provide an important input: to illustrate planned construction work. There is a difference between familiarity with house drawings and designing a house(unless you want a handed down design) With all due respect being good with a pencil is not the same as being good at visualising a solution to client's needs/reqs.

Tom/Dick/Harry can everything for less, and yet we moan where cowboys come from??

Who does what will all boil down to your expectations and scope of your vision.

kadman

Sonnenblumen wrote:

Who does what will all boil down to your expectations and scope of your vision.

And the price you are willing to pay.

Pay peanuts and get monkeys.;)

kadman

armchairninja

Sonnenblumen wrote:

Com cert can only be provided by Architect, and I would say be mindful of cosy associations.

This is not entirely true, as was said earlier in this thread, A technologist with 10 years experience can also provide a com cert.
I am studying Arch Tech at the minute and one of my lecturers is an Arch Tech Grad(one of the few lecturing on the Arch Tech Course) who is providing certs for his own business.

And he is also paying Architects to do the design for him......Imagine a Lowly Techie employing a "Higher Qualified" Architect!!!.....:D

muffler

Sonnenblumen wrote:

Com cert can only be provided by Architect

I dont know how many times it has to be said here but architects are not the only people who can sign off on projects.

Im a technician with 30 years experience and PI cover and I have lost count of the number of jobs that I've dealt with from start to finish and then issued all certs for Identity and compliance with PP and bldg. regs.

twenty8

I think, for me, that this thread highlights everything that I believe is wrong with architects.

In my opinion!, they are so far removed from real life that they don't have a clue about getting a job done in the most practical way possible. I am not taking away from their abilities or skills but do they have to be so anal??

Architects are not the only people who can sign off on buildings
Architects are not the only people who can prepare houses with the clients brief in mind
and Architects are not the only people who can be creative

but they are (again in my opinion!)

typically up to 10 times more expensive than technicians
very precious about 'their' plans (despite who is actually paying for them!)
removed from the real world

I am sure that they are many out there who will disagree with me and no - I did not have a bad experience with one. I met a lot when I was going to build my house and there were a few really nice guys. But could I work with them and justify the costs - -- no way. Let them stick to the big jobs where their skill set will be of more use.

Mellor

armchairninja wrote:

I am studying Arch Tech at the minute and one of my lecturers is an Arch Tech Grad(one of the few lecturing on the Arch Tech Course) who is providing certs for his own business.

I suggest that you pay closer attention in september. most of the lecturers in your course are arch tech graduates. i'm not going to name names here, but nearly everyone of them.

Mellor

I not trying to (and i dont think any one else is) discredit architects. Their design skills are key to the built environment. all the building we love and hate are most likely some architects vision. Large scale building need an architect to live up fully to potential. Where commercial or industrial construction can be made to work around the building.

In traditional domestic construction ease of building is top of the list for alot of people. Unless you want an ultra modern award winning type house (which will only get planning in certain locations) An architects design skills are wasted on a house

Sonnenblumen

Mellor wrote:

An architects design skills are wasted on a house

Mellor- I don't know where you're coming from or for that matter where you're heading, but IMO your comment is one most succinct pieces of bull**** I've ever read.

I'm afraid your credibility has tanked with that gem!

armchairninja

Mellor wrote:

I suggest that you pay closer attention in september. most of the lecturers in your course are arch tech graduates. i'm not going to name names here, but nearly everyone of them.

I have to agree with some of that and disagree with some of it, There is a high number of Arch Tech Grads teachin on the course but the further into the course you go i.e. 2nd and 3rd year, the more you will see that the year heads, assist. year heads and diff. lecturers are infact Architecture Graduates.

I agree with you, if your refering to 1st year where all bar 4 are Arch Tech Graduates....but overall I think that its rediculous to have architects teaching a course that they really arn't very well qualified to teach, I mean, If they were qualified enough to teach in the course why would we need technicians in the first place

Mellor

Sonnenblumen wrote:

Mellor- I don't know where you're coming from or for that matter where you're heading, but IMO your comment is one most succinct pieces of bull**** I've ever read.

I'm afraid your credibility has tanked with that gem!

Would you care to elaborate on your comment. In case you misunderstood me. The part you quoted was out of context anyway. My comment refered to houses where the architect had to hold back or stifle his design to get planning. A house that ended up fairly standard. Not a house with architectural character.
I hope that your are not trying to twist my words into something that they're not. If you want an architect to design a house, he should get almost free reign, asking an architect to design a bog standard house (that could be out of a book) is a little insulting. You wouldn't ask an artist to paint you walls.

I hope you understand my point a little better. I was refering to bog standard house architects are sometimes forced to design. Not ALL architect designed houses.

Mellor

armchairninja wrote:

I have to agree with some of that and disagree with some of it, There is a high number of Arch Tech Grads teachin on the course but the further into the course you go i.e. 2nd and 3rd year, the more you will see that the year heads, assist. year heads and diff. lecturers are infact Architecture Graduates.

I agree with you, if your refering to 1st year where all bar 4 are Arch Tech Graduates....but overall I think that its rediculous to have architects teaching a course that they really arn't very well qualified to teach, I mean, If they were qualified enough to teach in the course why would we need technicians in the first place

Actually I was refering to first year, as I think you said you have just finished first year. I agree that higher up the years the year heads are graduates from architecture. But I should point out that these are generally older staff members and the course is only 40 years old and they could of easily been around a bit longer.

Out of 21 staff members, there are about 7 that are as you put it teaching a course that they really arn't very well qualified to teach. But as i said these are the older members and all the staff in recent years are graduates.

armchairninja

Sorry, bout that misread your post:o .
Anyway, it seems as though you have a fairly good knowledge of the course, Would I be right in thinking your a past student or perhaps one of the lecturers?:eek:

Mellor

Close enough, I'm a current student. The course is no were near perfect, but luckyily for you, the new subjects and projects get tried out on us, and often messedup up, and then thay get it right for your year.

Naux

Mellor wrote:

My comment refered to houses where the architect had to hold back or stifle his design to get planning. A house that ended up fairly standard. Not a house with architectural character.

I think that in a lot of counties the fact is that their Development plan dictates what can and cannot be built and that in some counties the Development plans can be very restrictive:(

So you could have a world renowned architect but he still would have design within the Development plan guidlines.

In Galway for example the development plan encourages design with " traditional west of Ireland Cottage style windows" which looks f**kin horrible on large two storey houses.

Macy

Sonnenblumen wrote:

Reason Numero Uno why this country has had such a weak track record for good house design. Fortunately things are improving and the Celtic Tiger has provided great stimulus for people to be more adventurous about house design and increasingly architects are commissioned to realise the dream house.

I think the problem with poor house design is more to do with planners rather than failure to employ an architect. I could've spent €100k on an architect and I still would've only got permission for a bog standard bungalow. This isn't just a recent situation either, as a friend of the family was an architect and was continually shot down over 30 years ago for a non standard house - he had to give up and conform...

Just to confirm, you don't need an architect to sign off on a house, having just built one and had no problem with the compliance form signed off by an engineer either with the council, building society or solicitor.

vandy

deadl0ck wrote: »

Hi All,
Hi all my name is vandy and I am a 2nd year student at the University of Bolton. For my sissertation am doing the role of architectual technologist in the construction industry. Question is Why Technologists are seen or veiwed as a Technician?