Architect's Fees

DBK100

The current RIAI 'HOUSE' magazine contains an article which informs readers that “architect’s fees range from 12 – 18% of the build cost for the full RIAI service”. This relates to domestic works.

The front cover gives the impression that the lay-person (client) needs to be educated, quote: “How to be a model client and make your architect fly”.

It also has a double page spread advertising the services of “a network of RIAI architects” who are operating in a manner which must contravene the Competition Act, 2002.
The RIAI’s logo features on this website, which implies to the client that the Institute backs and supports this ‘network of architects’ who charge fixed fees of €500 for an initial visit (€125 per hour). This type of concerted action to restrict price is deemed illegal precisely because it is bad for the consumer not good, as claimed by the network’s organizers. Want proof: Many RIAI architects are offering initial consultations via their own websites for FREE, not €125 per hour.
Many are happy to meet with prospective clients for initial visits for no cost at all, as a means to securing work.
This is extremely useful to clients as it allows them to assess the architect and his ideas before committing to any service.
They can then agree to part company, or engage the architect for a full, or various options of partial service.
The €500 is charged prior to the client knowing which architect will even be appointed, or if they are even remotely compatible. (Compatibility being as much the client’s decision as the architect’s).
Prospective clients can currently find, and consult suitable architects, through the RIAI search facility and numerous other means such as The Golden Pages, ‘ArchitectureNow’ and architect’s own websites. All for no fee.

In the absence of any information on the website, it must be assumed that the organizers receive a percentage of each consultation, with the remainder going to the architect involved. If this is the case, it should be communicated to the client, so that they are aware they are paying an arrangement fee to a private company, in addition to the architect’s own fee.
__________________________________________________________

What do people think of architect's fees charged at this level and in this manner?
Do/did you use a RIAI registered Architect for domestic work?
Were you quoted a fixed fee or a percentage based fee?
How do people feel about a percentage fee?

Qualified architects are not involved in the vast majority of one-off domestic works (their involvement is at less than 10%).
Would domestic projects benefit from their design input if fees were lower and charged in a more transparent manner?

mucho

...cause you probably wont gwt planning permission anyway.

I'm not going to continue this anymore as I would get banned for swearing......................

local planners have way too much power and very limited scope to be challenged.........

KeRbDoG

mucho wrote: »

...cause you probably wont gwt planning permission anyway.

I'm not going to continue this anymore as I would get banned for swearing......................

local planners have way too much power and very limited scope to be challenged.........

Think your off topic mucho - he wasn't talking about getting permission but the costs of architects for their work

Mellor

DBK100 wrote: »

rant

First of all, just because the RIAI logo is on the page, doesn't mean that the company has anything to do with the RIAI. The RIAI website is the only place that can confirm this. I would of thought this was common sense.

Secondly, the 12-18% is a guide and by no means a RIAI rule. The smaller the job, the larger the design input will be comparatively, and therefore the higher the cost. Single production, bespoke architect designed household items could easily approach 30%. This is perfectly acceptable. Larger jobs could be in the 8-12% range.

Also, they are entitled to charge for any of their time (within reason obviously). As long as it is transparent, they are honest about their rates and the client agrees. Try to get Tadao Ando on site for an domestic extension for free.

DBK100

Mellor wrote: »

First of all, just because the RIAI logo is on the page, doesn't mean that the company has anything to do with the RIAI. The RIAI website is the only place that can confirm this. I would of thought this was common sense.

Secondly, the 12-18% is a guide and by no means a RIAI rule. The smaller the job, the larger the design input will be comparatively, and therefore the higher the cost. Single production, bespoke architect designed household items could easily approach 30%. This is perfectly acceptable. Larger jobs could be in the 8-12% range.

Also, they are entitled to charge for any of their time (within reason obviously). As long as it is transparent, they are honest about their rates and the client agrees. Try to get Tadao Ando on site for an domestic extension for free.

So there you go:
Mellor somehow thinks that he and his colleagues are on a par with Tadao Ando, dreaming of turning your modest extension into another jewelry-box award-winner.
Sure, if someone wants a Starchitect they will quite rightly pay huge fees.
On the other hand, the 90% plus of home builders and extenders who choose not to use RIAI architects do so for a reason, (which the above comments illustrate all too well).
That 90% tend to want more space for a growing family; to renovate and extend the old wreck they had to stretch to buy; to build a new house on a very, very tight budget, etc. A lot of them are design aware and want a beautiful end result. But on a budget.
As long as architects refuse to involve themselves in what the other 90%+ are after, the vast majority of domestic projects will miss out on useful design input (and architects will miss out on the work).
The 9 projects in the current issue of "HOUSE" all demonstrate the efforts of high-fee architects for the wealthy few. They represent a miniscule proportion of what is actually built.

By the way, the RIAI logo is a registered trademark which the public should quite rightly take as conferring the RIAI's backing. I would consider that to be actual 'common sense'. The 12-18% fee range is stated in a RIAI publication whose purpose is to attract more clients!
Yes anyone can charge what they want, but this publication ain't helping architects in this climate. Take a look at other commentators on this site and you will get some feel for opinions on architects charging for initial consultations & why they are to be avoided.

P.S. My post was written to elicit some opinions from lay-people in order to gain some further understanding as to why they avoid using architects. I hope to then use the information in a constructive way to improve things. I am already fully aware of opinions such as yours which maintain the status quo.

pearly20

Very briefly, heres my tuppence worth on this issue:
Decided to extend our 3 bed semi, last house on the road and an akwardly shaped site. Thought a good architect could work with the site to get the max from it. Found three whose work I liked, they each gave me a free consultation and quoted 12-15% of build price, plus VAT and extras eg planning fees. My budget of 80K was so tight I felt I couldnt justify fees of up to 12K. So I went it alone, got a technician to draw up plans to my design and away we went. 3 years on and whilst happy with the build I still feel it would have benefitted from an architects input. So, to answer the questions:


Do/did you use a RIAI registered Architect for domestic work?
No, but I would have if they were cheaper.

Were you quoted a fixed fee or a percentage based fee?
as above

How do people feel about a percentage fee?
I think in the current climate a percentage fee is laughable. Same with estate agents fees. A fixed fee, preferably negotiable, is going to get these guys a lot more work than a percentage fee.

Qualified architects are not involved in the vast majority of one-off domestic works (their involvement is at less than 10%).
Would domestic projects benefit from their design input if fees were lower and charged in a more transparent manner?
Yes absolutely domestic projects would benefit... I dont know if their fees CAN be lower, I've no idea how the financial end operates. All I know is I personally couldnt afford it. If I'd had the money I would have paid them their percentage. I know its a skill/talent they bring to the table and they deserve to be paid accordingly. As for transparency, it was always made clear to me what the fees were... Kinda wish I was doing the build now, I'm sure I would get better value for money, oh well..

Mellor

Wow, bit of a personall attack there.
Make assumptions much/

DBK100 wrote: »

So there you go:
Mellor somehow thinks that he and his colleagues are on a par with Tadao Ando, dreaming of turning your modest extension into another jewelry-box award-winner.

Where did I say I or anyone was on par?
I was merely illustrating how some architects choose to go this route. Seeking the "jewelry-box award-winner". If thats what they want, its fine, as long as they are "transparent, honest about their rates and the client agrees"
In this climate it would likely lose them business

But I never suggested all do it that way, or that they should. You comments either show a lack of reading ability, attitude problem or just plain ignorance. I suggest you read it again. And think about what I actually said. Higher fees for smaller jobs. I specifically refered to household items.

Sure, if someone wants a Starchitect they will quite rightly pay huge fees.
On the other hand, the 90% plus of home builders and extenders who choose not to use RIAI architects do so for a reason, (which the above comments illustrate all too well).

90% of people don't go for RIAI? Where did you get this figure. I would of thought it lower.
What reason is that btw, since you aimed at me.

That 90% tend to want more space for a growing family; to renovate and extend the old wreck they had to stretch to buy; to build a new house on a very, very tight budget, etc. A lot of them are design aware and want a beautiful end result. But on a budget.

Is this the same 90% that don't go to the RIAI. So you are saying all RIAI architects aim to be Starchitects. Again, making ridic assumptions.

As long as architects refuse to involve themselves in what the other 90%+ are after, the vast majority of domestic projects will miss out on useful design input (and architects will miss out on the work).

I agree. But to each their own.
For the record, I have never, and I doubt I ever will, refused work because the client was on a budget, wanted a simple design, or I wasn't allowed free reign. I have no idea what made you make those assumptions about me.
Also, I rarely quote a percentage fee for my own work. I much prefer to quote a fixed price, with room for adjustment due to unforeseen circumstances. OR occasionally an hourly rate for small work

The 9 projects in the current issue of "HOUSE" all demonstrate the efforts of high-fee architects for the wealthy few. They represent a miniscule proportion of what is actually built.

Are you serious?
House is a design magazine. Not a building magazine. So of course it is going to show current design that push the upper limits. You honestly expected to see a shoestring blockwork extension. (again this would be the bulk of my work incase you run off on other extensions)

By the way, the RIAI logo is a registered trademark which the public should quite rightly take as conferring the RIAI's backing. I would consider that to be actual 'common sense'. The 12-18% fee range is stated in a RIAI publication whose purpose is to attract more clients!

If that is what you honestly believe then you are very very naive.
Seriously, you think that is sensible to believe that somebody has the backing just because they have the logo. I suggest you come out of the clouds. Don't believe everything you see on a webpage.
There are cowboys out there, as you pointed out in another thread, that continue to use the term architect illegally. I wouldn't put it past these guys to stick up any logo to try to gain custom.

to be clear to anyone reading, most RIAI logos are legit imo. But always double check as I have seen fraudulent companies misleading people in a similar fashion. (was the RIAI logo I seen, but to a layperson as good as)

Yes anyone can charge what they want, but this publication ain't helping architects in this climate. Take a look at other commentators on this site and you will get some feel for opinions on architects charging for initial consultations & why they are to be avoided.

To be honest, I'm surprized that HOUSE, and all the similar mags can find high design jobs to stay in publication, I would of expected it to fall off in this climate.
I also find it crazy that architects are charging for initial work. I would of thought they would be out hunting for work, for lower than ever fees.
A job with low fees, is better than no job imo.

P.S. My post was written to elicit some opinions from lay-people in order to gain some further understanding as to why they avoid using architects. I hope to then use the information in a constructive way to improve things. I am already fully aware of opinions such as yours which maintain the status quo.

Opinions such as mine?????
I really, really think you need to read what I wrote again. I was pointing out that people are within their rights to target any demographic, no matter how wise or unwise it is in this climate. This applies to all areas, (such as expensive retailers, fashion designers, restuarants, car manufacturers etc)
You've made huge assumptions about the way I carry out business. And to be honest, you are way off.


Now, if all architects/designers were choosing to take this route. And it was impossible to find an architect that will work on low budget jobs. I would consider it a terrible situation, but that isn't the case.

DBK100

pearly20 wrote: »

Very briefly, heres my tuppence worth on this issue:
Decided to extend our 3 bed semi, last house on the road and an akwardly shaped site. Thought a good architect could work with the site to get the max from it. Found three whose work I liked, they each gave me a free consultation and quoted 12-15% of build price, plus VAT and extras eg planning fees. My budget of 80K was so tight I felt I couldnt justify fees of up to 12K. So I went it alone, got a technician to draw up plans to my design and away we went. 3 years on and whilst happy with the build I still feel it would have benefitted from an architects input. So, to answer the questions:


Do/did you use a RIAI registered Architect for domestic work?
No, but I would have if they were cheaper.

Were you quoted a fixed fee or a percentage based fee?
as above

How do people feel about a percentage fee?
I think in the current climate a percentage fee is laughable. Same with estate agents fees. A fixed fee, preferably negotiable, is going to get these guys a lot more work than a percentage fee.

Qualified architects are not involved in the vast majority of one-off domestic works (their involvement is at less than 10%).
Would domestic projects benefit from their design input if fees were lower and charged in a more transparent manner?
Yes absolutely domestic projects would benefit... I dont know if their fees CAN be lower, I've no idea how the financial end operates. All I know is I personally couldnt afford it. If I'd had the money I would have paid them their percentage. I know its a skill/talent they bring to the table and they deserve to be paid accordingly. As for transparency, it was always made clear to me what the fees were... Kinda wish I was doing the build now, I'm sure I would get better value for money, oh well..

Thanks Pearly for that feedback. It is very useful and hopefully others might follow suit with their experiences, opinions and suggestions.

I do disagree with most of what Mellor has added above, and as an architect, and am confident enough in my opinions to know that the profession has so much more to contribute to the quality of domestic architecture. Sometimes looking 'from the outside in' can be a very helpful exercise.
(Personal attack? We're not aquatinted, are posting anonymously on a discussion forum, and my initial considered thoughts were bluntly dismissed as a 'rant'. You shouldn't be surprised when such dismissals are then challenged: Your opinions were challenged rather than your person attacked).
I believe many people like Pearly are aware of what it is architects can bring to the table and would use an RIAI architect if some aspects (including fees) were different. It is a problem for all parties that 90%+ of domestic projects go without architectural input.
In many, many cases people end up deciding that money spent on the kitchen or the bathroom or an Aga is better used than on an architect's fee. These things are tangible, so the attitude can be understood.

I am interested in seeing if this can be addressed in some way that could change the public's perceptions of architects in relation to domestic work for the better.

Mellor

DBK100 wrote: »

(Personal attack? We're not aquatinted, are posting anonymously on a discussion forum,

no we're not a acquainted. but that doesn't meant that it wasn't personal.
You made comments directly aimed at me

Mellor somehow thinks that he and his colleagues are on a par with Tadao Ando

and then made comments about how much I charge.
I'm sorry but I don't know you and I have no idea how you can justify assumptions about me.

and my initial considered thoughts were bluntly dismissed as a 'rant'. You shouldn't be surprised when such dismissals are then challenged: Your opinions were challenged rather than your person attacked).

I never dismiss your thought bluntly???
I quoted your post and shortened it to "rant". Its common practise when quoting long posts. you appeared to be annoyed at the rant comment and didn't bother reading my post.
If you did you'll see that I wasn't disagreeing with you, I was just pointing out that the few architects that operate that way are entitled to. dispite it being a terrible business idea at the minute.

jungleboy

fees vary depending on the architect, i have used a carlow based architect to get some info, there was no charge ! we done verything using facebook, you can log on and ask question and they will answer them for free. check out this link http://www.facebook.com/pages/Milltown-Architects/110148006191

DBK100

jungleboy wrote: »

fees vary depending on the architect, i have used a carlow based architect to get some info, there was no charge ! we done verything using facebook, you can log on and ask question and they will answer them for free. check out this link http://www.facebook.com/pages/Milltown-Architects/110148006191

Interesting.
I wonder did he anticipate a potential job & fee coming out of the contact?
I thought that sites such as Facebook and Flickr didn't really allow private commercial use. Flickr's terms say they can close an account without notice for this type of use...

jungleboy

not sure about flickr but facebook allow you to add a business / commercial page once your a registered user.

I would say that the whole idea of giving free advise is to create awareness for the architect - its good to see this - and it helped me alot. I will go back to them and ask for a cost should I go ahead with the job, I call around some other places and they all ask to make an appointment and come in. I didn't like the sound of that this way we just exchanged email and i felt more comfortable - like there is no commitment

DBK100

We happily give free architectural advice on that basis too (just haven't utilised Facebook yet).
We had a couple recently who were hoping to put a bid on a derelict house & some ruined stone out-buildings which already had planning permission granted to be redeveloped.
We advised them on typical construction costs, conservation issues and their plan to possibly go for a revised permission. They were extremely grateful for the help (they understandably wanted to minimise expenditure until they committed to a project), they haven't progressed as yet, but they have been left with a good impression of us as architects, and may come back eventually with some work or recommend us to others.

jungleboy

DBK100 wrote: »

We happily give free architectural advice on that basis too (just haven't utilised Facebook yet).
We had a couple recently who were hoping to put a bid on a derelict house & some ruined stone out-buildings which already had planning permission granted to be redeveloped.
We advised them on typical construction costs, conservation issues and their plan to possibly go for a revised permission. They were extremely grateful for the help (they understandably wanted to minimise expenditure until they committed to a project), they haven't progressed as yet, but they have been left with a good impression of us as architects, and may come back eventually with some work or recommend us to others.

Where abouts are you guys based? do you have a web page?

DBK100

jungleboy wrote: »

Where abouts are you guys based? do you have a web page?

We are in Centre of Dublin but are more than happy to discuss work elsewhere. We have current projects in Donegal, Portaferry, Kildare...
We would advise you accordingly if we thought you would be better with a local practice.
Sent you a PM with our details.

Niall Keane

Always hated this initial consultation should be free attitude. I think it stems from the general public thinking that architects just draw up pretty images, and sadly nowadays a lot do just that. Well you get what you pay for.
Here’s an example of the “value” an architect can add. I’ll use my most recent completed project. An extension / renovation to a lower ground floor and upper ground floor of a three story house. The lower ground floor was in effect a basement to the front and opened out onto the back garden.
This basement contained the main living area and kitchen. It had suffered serious flooding in August 2008 due to substandard tanking systems being employed.
Now the extension/ renovation was for 130 sqm, our fee 14K.
I negotiated a tender down from 297K to 167K, the client is delighted with the result, all variations amounting to 7.5K have been agreed and certified / paid by practical completion. So in other words without me on the project the client would have faced a bill or over 297K, the variations claimed were also trashed out re. value of such. So we’re talking a saving of well over 130K, solely due to tender negations and contract management.
Also insurance came into play due to the flood damage. At first they were offered 12.5K to replace finishes. Through a report charged at 500e I highlighted the failure of the tanking system, proved where the ingress of water was where I had initially opinionated, contrary to the insurance “expert engineer”. Thus the claim was finally settled for 37.5 K. so in real terms they invested 500e into architectural fees and got a 25k return. I.e. a return of 5,000%, where else are such returns offered in the current climate???
This is the benefit of using an experienced qualified “real” architect, and as such I have no hesitation or shame in charging fees for initial consultations. It certainly helps to weed out the time wasters. At first to establish a built portfolio I did indeed do such deals, but soon realised all it took was a handful of such consultations to mean that ½ of your working week was pro-bono, or to put it another way, your serious clients would end up paying more to give such “potential” clients a free lunch. Is this fair on your genuine clients? How can you ask for appropriate fees, fees that reflect your return on investment, and years of sacrifice to become a professional architect after basically giving design advice for free, in a way you have project managed out your most valuable and particular contribution to a project!
Also lets remember, that insurance must be paid, signing/ stamping a cert makes you responsible for 6-12 years. To cover this under PI costs.
Perhaps Architects would be better off properly listing all of the services and time required for a project giving options at fee negations stage, I certainly now do, but I can afford to having been paid for initial consultation, and so have noticed the astonished look on clients faces, and the appreciation of the actual work involved when they are made aware of it, rather than assuming you’re just doing planning, tender and construction drawings. I no longer refer to schedule A of the RIAI architect / client agreement, due to its limited capacity to identify the scope of work, and its implication that every job is the same. Remember most people now live in a copy and paste world, relying on precedents, in their own work practices, and conversely the architect should be designing prototypes relevant for each differing context. I know that a lot of Irish homes and extensions have been designed by homebond and whatever house existed on the building technicians college course book. And I lament the fact that many architects encourage a client only to engage their services to planning, simply selling pretty pictures, and advice rather than having the balls to see a project through and sign it off. This is what needs to change.

DBK100

"Always hated this initial consultation should be free attitude. I think it stems from the general public thinking that architects just draw up pretty images, and sadly nowadays a lot do just that. Well you get what you pay for. "

I come across many members of the public who know a great deal about what architects actually do, and have a wide appreciation of the skills involved that go beyond just design.
A lot of these people would have a strong preference to hire an architect for their domestic work but cost & fees are often the primary obstacle as to why they don't. These members of the public actually do include doctors, solicitors, IT professionals, marketing executives etc...

The type of free advice or consultation that I offer often helps potential clients to move ahead with a project and subsequently become clients (whether this revolves around the potential of an already owned house or a decision to buy an old house or ruin). Sometimes my advice leads to a decision where I know I will not secure work i.e. bringing potential planning problems, construction issues, or budget issues to the attention of the party so they can make an informed decision.

I don't think anyone has posted here about offering a free level of service that involves signing/ stamping a cert or negotiating contract sums etc. This is about initial advice that assists people in deciding whether to proceed with work, and then quite possibly hire an architect.

Any and every good architect should be providing the level of service outlined in the earlier post as a matter of course. The people who do hire them are aware of what it is architects do and why it is they are paying the fees.
It is very interesting that many excellent architects ('Real' and often award-winning ones) currently do not share the hatred of free initial consultations as described above. I have found numerous websites, including our own, who wisely embrace this approach.

Would you commission a full service from an interior designer, landscape designer, a portrait from a painter, a sculpture or any other tailored service without having spent time with the relevant person getting to know them and their work beforehand? I certainly would not. If an architect is not prepared to undertake a small amount of at-risk legwork to secure a commission, then just go elsewhere.
If an architect wishes to perceive all contacts who ask some initial advice as time wasters, that’s entirely his choice. He can keep on working on his handful of bespoke extensions and nothing changes.

"all it took was a handful of such consultations to mean that ½ of your working week was pro-bono, or to put it another way, your serious clients would end up paying more to give such “potential” clients a free lunch."

I think the above point is seriously flawed. Consider the fortunes spent on advertising and entertainment by companies with the anticipation of attracting new customers. Who pays for all of this? No one but the existing customers of course. This is fair, and it is called business (and yes, an architect's practice is of course a business).

"Remember most people now live in a copy and paste world, relying on precedents, in their own work practices, and conversely the architect should be designing prototypes relevant for each differing context."

This way of looking at the architect's role is the nub of the problem. The architect should constantly be designing "prototypes", originals, bespoke, unique, one-off, etc. etc...
Let me be clear, I am not knocking outstanding design for one moment. I have won a number of awards for my work as a Project Architect and team member, including one of the main RIAI annual awards and an international competition organized by the RIAI. I think good design is worth paying for. I also think good design should be made accessible so that more people can pay for (afford) it.
The attitude that architects should design prototypes is irrelevant except to the tiny wealthy few. The definition of the word prototype makes clear why this is so:

Prototype (from Wikipedia):
In many fields, there is great uncertainty as to whether a new design will actually do what is desired. New designs often have unexpected problems. A prototype is often used as part of the product design process to allow engineers and designers the ability to explore design alternatives, test theories and confirm performance prior to starting production of a new product.

Most people spending tens of thousands of their hard earned money are, with good reason, looking for a little more surety on the performance of their finished product than the 'prototype' offers them.

"And I lament the fact that many architects encourage a client only to engage their services to planning, simply selling pretty pictures, and advice rather than having the balls to see a project through and sign it off. This is what needs to change."

Architects encourage a client only to engage their services to planning? Never, ever heard of it happen. The reality is that the client often only wants to, or can only engage the architect to this stage for financial reasons. Or possibly thinks that the architect's post-planning services are non-essential.
But having an architect's involvement to at least planning stage is a much better than no involvement at all. That’s a complete no-brainer.

So the issue maybe is about architects having the balls to change things, but in a way that brings much more of our domestic buildings into the loop, where they can benefit from architect's design input.
This is what needs to change.

It would be great to have some more feedback from that General Public who think architects just draw pretty images!

jungleboy

I agree with DBK100, that sort of stuff posted by Niall Keane is exactly what puts people of approaching architects for, the constant reminder of how good you are and how much money you can save for the client is a bit hard to listen to. Your point about having a professional is noted but would want one full of their own importance?

su_dios

jungleboy wrote: »

I agree with DBK100, that sort of stuff posted by Niall Keane is exactly what puts people of approaching architects for, the constant reminder of how good you are and how much money you can save for the client is a bit hard to listen to. Your point about having a professional is noted but would want one full of their own importance?

Wow I would have thought that value for money was a good thing..especially in this climate!
Now please tell us what job is it that you do? Architect's wages were not that great at all in the good days, and are far from good in these days. The amount of time, effort and work is what is being charged for. There are few professions in general that would require similar effort and attention such as doctors.
The architect doesn't build, he designs and ensures the builder will follow up on his design and resolve any potential issues. He will do so with the intention to giving you the best you could hope for. Of course you could go and get someone to build it yourself, but then you are ignoring the crucial design stage. You will end up with two very different results, with little in the difference in the price. Fine if you are happy with mediocre at best. I would like to think most people would hold design as something central to the building process.
The public's perception of an architect seems very tainted in this country. Not that I could blame them.. the crap outweighs the good, and most of this stuff is usually not designed by an actual 'architect'

Niall Keane

DBK100

Would you commission a full service from an interior designer, landscape designer, a portrait from a painter, a sculpture or any other tailored service without having spent time with the relevant person getting to know them and their work beforehand? I certainly would not.

I have a portfolio of work, a website and satisfied clients and contractors to referee my work! In my experience, if you give free design advice you devalue the advice, and set a precedent, where the client feels that it should be free. As for “getting to know them”, I’m selling architectural design not friendship! No I don’t want to be called about tile colours at 10pm on a Friday evening!!:)

He can keep on working on his handful of bespoke extensions and nothing changes.

Maybe I’m taking you up wrong, but I sense a criticism because I work on domestic extensions. I do this along with much larger scale work because I believe that architecture is not just for the super rich. I have to say even with current fees as surveyed by RIAI I do not know how someone could legitimately earn a living through domestic work alone and the associated low fees and high maintenance clients. I don’t mean this in a bad way, an interested client can stimulate great design, but it is their home, and fear and excitement have a habit of breaking down conventional boundaries such as office times etc. hence my joke about the often experienced phone call on weekend evenings, on holidays etc. That is of course if design hasn’t been project managed out, leaving what is being sold as design a copy and paste job!

Prototype (from Wikipedia):
In many fields, there is great uncertainty as to whether a new design will actually do what is desired. New designs often have unexpected problems. A prototype is often used as part of the product design process to allow engineers and designers the ability to explore design alternatives, test theories and confirm performance prior to starting production of a new product.

Most people spending tens of thousands of their hard earned money are, with good reason, looking for a little more surety on the performance of their finished product than the 'prototype' offers them.

Also from Wikipedia:
Architects plan, design and review the construction of buildings and structures for the use of people by the creative organisation of materials and components with consideration to mass, space, form, volume, texture, structure, light, shadow, materials, program, and pragmatic elements such as cost, construction limitations and technology, to achieve an end which is usually functional, economical, practical and often artistic.

So, I’ll keep this discussion at the domestic, as the OP was referring to it.
Now, we’re not talking about testing out new materials, never used before, flown in from NASA, we’re discussing architectural design relevant to domestic situations. All such materials and systems will be CE marked or have an agrement cert. So they work! (Or, at least that is what it says on the tin, and this is true for mass produced pitched roof colloquial or pastiche homes as it is for contemporary designs.)

So is an extension a prototype or can we copy and paste a solution?
Are all house layouts identical? Are all houses orientated the same way? Will light penetration perform identically in all homes across the country regardless of context? Is site context always the same? Do identical rights to light and other easements impact in the exact same way on every site? These questions hinge on light alone, one of the 13 components listed above by Wiki. Added to that most importantly, do all clients want the same thing?
If the answer is no to any of these questions then a prototype design is called for, that is if one hopes to address the particularities of the individual project. Of course this means added time and therefore cost!

Architects encourage a client only to engage their services to planning? Never, ever heard of it happen.

Right, clearly Boards.ie is a portal to a parallel universe, how do I get there??? Design-build projects that require an advisory role from an architect, and final compliance certification based on a visual survey on a particular day after completion have been a rare thing on our beloved shores? Builders on domestic jobs asking for clients to get planning first before they’d touch it, having also warned the client to save themselves on architects fees by not going for a full service, as they “wouldn’t need the drawings”, in effect really allowing themselves to use the cheapest materials and charge an outrageous percentage of variations unchecked by a professional. This wasn’t common place in your universe?

But having an architect's involvement to at least planning stage is a much better than no involvement at all. That’s a complete no-brainer.

I once received a planning package (planning granted) drawn by a qualified architect to take to completion. The gutter was drawn in detail above the roof slate; well to be accurate a detail was copied and dropped on to an impossible position. You need to understand that this was in an urban context, where height was crucial, no getting away with “substantial compliance” especially with the neighbour from hell next door. I went down the road of amendment to existing granted. It allowed a more considered design approach in other areas as well. So, I would agree that some design involvement is better than none; however, this would assume that there was actual design consideration, something that can be more effectively guaranteed if the architect “has” to take it all the way.

su dios

The architect doesn't build, he designs and ensures the builder will follow up on his design and resolve any potential issues. He will do so with the intention to giving you the best you could hope for. Of course you could go and get someone to build it yourself, but then you are ignoring the crucial design stage. You will end up with two very different results, with little in the difference in the price. Fine if you are happy with mediocre at best. I would like to think most people would hold design as something central to the building process.
The public's perception of an architect seems very tainted in this country. Not that I could blame them.. the crap outweighs the good, and most of this stuff is usually not designed by an actual 'architect'

+1

DBK100

Niall Keane wrote: »

I have a portfolio of work, a website and satisfied clients and contractors to referee my work! In my experience, if you give free design advice you devalue the advice, and set a precedent, where the client feels that it should be free. As for “getting to know them”, I’m selling architectural design not friendship! No I don’t want to be called about tile colours at 10pm on a Friday evening!! Etc...

Communication is notoriously tricky to pin down. It’s a phenomenon that’s at the same time ubiquitous yet elusive, prosaic yet mysterious, straightforward yet frustratingly prone to failure. Email / discussion boards seem to exacerbate that problem:

I did not mention forming friendships or providing an out-of-hours service to clients.
I did not criticise domestic architectural work. I work in this area too.
I did not contemplate in any way the use of space-age materials, (yet many architect's details do consistently fail, - the evidence is plain).
I did not suggest the designer of a building or extension had to chose between the polar opposites of ‘prototype’ or ‘pasted copy’.
I would reiterate that I have never once heard of an architect encouraging a client to engage him only to planning stage and no further.
I would clarify that more often than not, an architect's involvement at least to planning stage is preferable to none at all.
And Unfortunately,
I would have to agree that the involvement of a qualified architect, as mentioned in the last paragraph above, sometimes does not guarantee the absence of silly and costly mistakes despite the fees involved.

Mellor

DBK100, in your opinion, does the fact that you give out free consultations mean that you like have to charge more per hour (or per the remainder of scope) in order to make the same per job/month/year.

I'm refering to specificly smaller scale jobs (say extensions) were the consutation might be c.10% of the time. Would your fee for the clients that go through with the work increase by 10% to compensate? Can you even tell considering theres no standard rate per hour?
Or are you happy to take it as a loss in the hopes of getting in work to begin with.

DBK100

Mellor wrote: »

DBK100, in your opinion, does the fact that you give out free consultations mean that you like have to charge more per hour (or per the remainder of scope) in order to make the same per job/month/year.

I'm refering to specificly smaller scale jobs (say extensions) were the consutation might be c.10% of the time. Would your fee for the clients that go through with the work increase by 10% to compensate? Can you even tell considering theres no standard rate per hour?
Or are you happy to take it as a loss in the hopes of getting in work to begin with.

Regarding charging more to compensate for initial time: No, not at all.
I think there maybe is a misconception as to what might be involved in an initial free consultation. It would be nowhere near 10% of the overall time devoted to a job. I am talking about very preliminary guidance on some relevant issues or a possible problem that could be the difference between a job developing or no job at all. Perhaps a couple looking for a little guidance on the typical costs of a 50Sqm extension so they can compare this with the costs of relocating, or whether that extension might be generally feasible in planning terms etc. That kind of assistance can help people come to firm decisions to proceed. Its understandable that house owners want to limit expenditure prior to being certain whether the works are even feasible.

Think of the many types of businesses selling services or goods who have to invest in sales space, advertising, call-outs for estimating etc. This is not just giving something free to a 'time-waster', this is investing in their own business, because that is how they can secure new customers.
Architects are really not that different. Yes, we have to offer a professional service as distinct to a purely business one, but we are still businesses and can learn a huge amount, and improve a huge amount, in how we attract new clients and them provide them with the service they want.

So providing free consultation advice should not be seen as a one way street with Mr(s) Architect loosing and Mr & Mrs X gaining something. Niall Keane commented: "I have a portfolio of work, a website and satisfied clients and contractors to referee my work!",... but so do the majority of architects!
An initial consultation gives potential clients the opportunity to see and talk to you, the person they will be working with on their own home for a lengthy period of time. In these circumstances, personalities, compatibility, ( & a lack of some of the traits often assigned to architects), etc. are all very important.
This would give the client the opportunity to go with the practice that they feel is right for them without having shelled out €500 to an outfit like 'home architect' (as per OP) to not even know who will arrive at their door.

Architects should instead be thinking of that 'free consultation' as their opportunity to sell themselves and clinch that new commission.

Niall Keane

Regarding charging more to compensate for initial time: No, not at all.

Think of the many types of businesses selling services or goods who have to invest in sales space, advertising, call-outs for estimating etc. This is not just giving something free to a 'time-waster', this is investing in their own business, because that is how they can secure new customers.

ah, pull the other one, how naive do you take the posters to be?

End of the day if you run a business just like all the others you mentioned you do so to make a profit and earn a living. The cost of their sales space, advertising, call-outs for estimating etc. is also passed onto their customers. Architects also advertise, and most companies who estimate do so based on drawings, dimensions, and at a last resort, unless certain of business, they call out.

No matter how you charge – fixed fee, percentage, hourly rate, you’ll have based these on gaining the return you hope for from your investment. In an architect’s case as we don’t actually produce a physical product, we design, check, measure and manage, and its raw material is time.

So if you have balanced your books to earn a living based on a 40 hour week ( that would be nice!) should you then decide that you’ll give 8 hours to free consultancy spots, a 2 hour site visit here and a phone call there, this cost has to be passed on to your real clients. If you were being paid for that time, you could reduce your fees to your actual clients. Consultancy would form part of your business model.

So, my opinion is that a naive client may think great I’m getting a freebee here, the more astute will realise that others are getting your time and professional advice sponsored by them!

DBK100

Niall, please reread post No.21. I was attempting to illustrate how you had misconstrued my post. I think now that you are seeking out sections of my comments for that precise purpose.

Of course every business hopes to recover initial consultation costs through actually securing a job. That is the very nature of it. If you want more jobs then go after them. If you don't, then don't.

Are you really suggesting that during an initial contact you would stop a potential client at the first sign of a question regarding costs or timescale or planning issues, and say: "Sorry, must stop you there, but I'm going to have to start the clock now because that would be valuable advice, and I don't want to devalue my profession"?
Have you ever thought about how many clients you don't have and why you do not have them? (Not a personal comment - but clients who go elsewhere generally won't tell you it was because you started that clock).

Your opinion differs to mine, so just carry on what you're doing and good luck. I don't really want to argue this with you as you're not changing my point of view, and I can tell that I stand little chance of changing yours.

The main purpose of this thread was to get feedback from others outside the architectural profession. Feedback that might help lead to positive change.
I sincerely think that your comments are actually helping to illustrate my points rather than detract from them.

Niall Keane

I don't run the clock, but neither do I do feasibility studies for free, many now do. I have to say the quality of the finished products I've seen, reflects the lack of fees. I have had clients leave and come back to me for this very reason.

Feedback that might help lead to positive change.

I applaud your invitation for the public to give feedback on the architectural profession. I just don't think tackling architectural fees which are linked to construction costs which have fallen themselves by at least 30% are the way to promote the value of architectural design. I'm a little concerned that the current terror in the architectural profession 40%+ unemployed, and the desperate work for free for a hint of a job climate will lead to the degeneration of the quality of the service provided. Why? well I'm just expanding on:

So if you have balanced your books to earn a living based on a 40 hour week ( that would be nice!) should you then decide that you’ll give 8 hours to free consultancy spots, a 2 hour site visit here and a phone call there, this cost has to be passed on to your real clients. If you were being paid for that time, you could reduce your fees to your actual clients. Consultancy would form part of your business model.

So, my opinion is that a naive client may think great I’m getting a freebee here, the more astute will realise that others are getting your time and professional advice sponsored by them!

Should a climate of free initial consultancy ensue, it won't be long until further competition exists in this sphere, i.e. maybe free consultation, free site visit and free survey. This all takes time. If its not being paid for initially, it has to be passed on later down the road, or what will probably happen, less time is to be spent on each project, so more projects can be taken on. More and more of the architects role is outsourced to the likes of planning consultants and project managers, a way to hide the true scope of design fees, (the childish attitude of, "look how hard I'm trying" its not my fault, engineer's are expensive.....)and so the final product is compromised, not given the time it deserves.

So like everything else in this world you get what you pay for.

pook

How successful are architects (or architect technicians) at obtaining planning where an extension is required to a Listed building?

We have had our application refused despite taking advice of conservation officer. The Planner had no objection.

How do fees vary between an architect and a registered? architectural technologist

Mellor

pook wrote: »

How successful are architects (or architect technicians) at obtaining planning where an extension is required to a Listed building?

We have had our application refused despite taking advice of conservation officer. The Planner had no objection.

How do fees vary between an architect and a registered? architectural technologist

It's probably better to post this in a new thread.
It's a separate issue, and will get the attention it deserves.

Also, this is generally the forum for the artistic side of architecture.
The technical side goes in the Arch Tech forum. I feel your post is more suited there. It forum is regularly check by a number of Architects and Technologists

http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/forumdisplay.php?f=1097


Post again, and maybe link it here.