What do we do?

Slig

Call it market research or just myth busting but following on from an earlier thread that was going way off topic, why do you hire your "architect"?
If you were building a house what would you expect from your "architect?"

Is it to design your house or just draw up the design you have in mind?

Maybe you want advice on the best building systems, technologies and construction methods to be integrated into your build or you just want someone that WILL get you planning permission and nothing else.

What do you believe is a good service and what is an acceptable fee?

Do you think an "architect" is needed after planning is recieved or would you be as confident dealing exclusively with the builder?

These questions arent meant to sound condesending to anybody but they might allow people from both sides to get some honest opinions, hoping for some surprising answers aswell

*By architect I'm reffering to any relevant professional, Architect, Arch Tech, engineer etc.

BryanF

I feel professional independent advice that’s unconnected to a product or installer can ensure a client makes the necessary informed decisions to improve there home or new build.

ShiverinEskimo

We approached an Architect because frankly we hadn't a clue what to do or how to go about designing and building a house to comply with all regulations and planning laws.

Having designed the house and done up our application we have no asked him to project-manage the build should PP be granted because again, we have no experience in the industry, both work full time and would prefer a professional eye being kept on the builders.

The advantage of choosing the Architect we chose is that he designed and managed the build of the missus's sister's house and we were very impressed both with the design and attention to detail maintained by the builders via the Architect's instructions. He charges 2000 to manage the project and this feels like pittance for the amount of work we know he did for the sister's build - they pretty much never dealt directly with any of the tradesmen which meant they were never given the opportunity to cut corners or bombard the clients with jargon etc and result in mistakes.

It also helps to have someone on board who isn't emotionally attached to a project and who can give sound advice as to what may or may not work etc.

mfceiling

I still am amazed when I work on people's houses and they are asking me my advice on building matters in which I know nothing about.
You ask them what their architect recommends..ah that fellow hasn't a clue!!
Seriously you are dealing with a professional..use them properly!!

muffler

A good thread well worthy of debate.

Any professional is open to criticism, some of it justified and some of it not. How many times have we heard stories of "bad things" done by solicitors, dentists, architects, doctors, auctioneers, teachers etc etc. The negative criticism can be broken into 2 distinct categories ...... the justified and the clients who want to justify their own actions or inactions.

Unlike doctors patients for example, people (clients) should really take the lead role initially when dealing with architects, technicians, engineers. The clients need to brief the professional at the outset and work with him thereafter. There will be occasions when the professional has to insist that certain matters are included such as compliance with the building regulations and compliance with planning requirements but other than that the arch./tech./eng. should really be offering advice and suggestions and not imposing his personal thoughts and beliefs.

Im a great believer in the old adage that the man is but a mere vehicle (no naughty replies now. What I mean by that is that you engage that vehicle and it will take you from your starting point to your destination. But bear in mind that the vehicle is only as good as the driver.

If there is a common theme in relation to client's complaints regarding design for example its usually that the "designer" insisted that his design was utilised rather than the client's. So when someone employs a professional, set out the rules of engagement from the very outset. If your professional doesn't know what you want, how you want it, where you want it, etc he is of course going to come up with his own proposals.

So never be afraid to take the reins and put your foot down when you have to.

Slig

Thats exactly what I'm trying to get at with this thread. I have seen load of threads where people seem unhappy with the service that they got from their architect or their fees.

I think thats very unfortunate and I'd like to see why its happening. There seem to be lots of issues with the scope of work and the fees charged. what do people expect from their architect, do they want someone that is on-site all the time or just someone to get advice from?

ShiverinEskimo

When we got our first draft of drawings we had two fairly plain large windows to the front of the house. We asked our Architect to come up with a couple of ideas to 'spruce' them up a bit. They were south-facing windows so we asked about bay windows etc. and also about putting a peak on the top of each.

After about a week of back and forth we told him we preferred it the first way (and we did because seeing the other ways made us realise the first way was best). Our Architect thankfully took the bright view of it and laughed about it despite us wasting a decent chunk of his time but in the end I'm glad we pressed him anyways because now we're 100% sure about the windows.

Those windows are the tip of the ice-berg too. People shouldn't let the fact that (s)he knows more about designing a house than you intimidate them into going along with a design/feature they might not like for fear of looking/sounding like an idiot. They work for you, you are their client; anything at all you're not happy with should be put to them and changed to your liking. At the end of the day the architect isn't going to care what way you want your house as long as it meet regulations/planning laws. You're one of many clients and by staying quiet and not providing input into the design-phase you are only harming yourself because you will literally have to live with the results.

gucis

If you want to build your own house, for example, then normally architect should give you a drawing with description of all materials used in building.
It would be great that you discuss with architect of quality of materials you want, costs. So architect is able to offer you some choice.

Builder should do his job as architect specified.


Planning costs usually varies from 3% to 10% of the building costs.

JuniorB

As total amateurs starting out we went to our AT with the basic ' what can we get planning for?' question. In fairness to him he explained the whole design process and while we initially went along as he would 'get us planning' we were delighted with the input we had and the whole design journey. It really was a case of a combined effort with loads of options thrown out and the pros and cons of them all discussed.
We gave him free reign initially and then pulled him back when he went a bit mad with the 'nice to have but can do without!' stuff.

There was a natural progression from there to tendering and overseeing the build.
I would highly recommend having someone there for the build process. He was our sounding board. He was the buffer between us and the builder. He was even the buffer between meself and the Mrs at times! Sometimes we felt it was his house more than ours!
Mainly he was the 'talk to X' when there were any technical queries and more importantly issues with the builder.
And I'd be absolutely certain that we have a better built house and saved money along the way by having a professional involved.

sydthebeat

i think some of the problems extends from the myriad of "building professionals" available at domestic scale building. Its not unusual to see engineers, architects and technicians all being involved as the "building professional" at planning and construction stage.
Each profession has its own specialities, while also having a broad knowledge on the others area. Engineers focus on structure, Architects on design, and Technicians on building physics. each may be able to give detailed and informed responses to questions about their particular area, but may be fuzzy or incomplete in responses to questions outside their comfort zone. Thus, clients, expecting their "building professional" to be all encompassing, may feel disappointed by some aspect of the service.

from my own personal view, the best projects tend to be ones where the client and architect work together in the brief formation and subsequent design. Its part of the architects job to challange the brief and sometimes clients can be very surprised about their owns views when challenged upon them. An infamous factor of many "tiger" era houses was the 'bigger is better' view that clients had.
"Oh we need a separate sun room, separate playroom, separate study, separate dining room.... and of course we must have our huge open plan kitchen / living / dining as well. Four bedroom, oh and a guest bedroom as well of course, with attached wet room... for the visitors, you know.... perhaps with a little living space like youd get in a hotel suite...... oh and put a bay on it as well....."
Very quickly in todays environment clients are realising that a clever architect who can manipulate space to maximise sun / living areas is worth the fees charged. No longer are people happy to walk a 100 foot corridor from the kitchen to the bathroom.

The worst example of project ive seen is where clients come in with "pre-scribed" plans drawn by themselves. They tend to be very inflexible after putting to paper what they want themselves, leaving no room for their brief to be challenged. You then end up with cold dark living spaces and bland exteriors.

There seems to be a reluctance to equate value to design.

martinn123

Great thread OP, I am sure all will welcome this chance to debate issues...........I have to agree with all said above regarding the design/planning stages.........We approached this on a ''what can I get planning for'' basis, and then progressed the design with our Architect to the conclusion of a well designed and fully functioning home for our family........thanks to the understanding of a well qualified Architect.

Slig wrote: »

Thats exactly what I'm trying to get at with this thread. I have seen load of threads where people seem unhappy with the service that they got from their architect or their fees.

I think thats very unfortunate and I'd like to see why its happening. There seem to be lots of issues with the scope of work and the fees charged. what do people expect from their architect, do they want someone that is on-site all the time or just someone to get advice from?

Perhaps unhappy threads, result from a lack of understanding of the different services ....during the build..... that Architects offer.

If someone would outline the different levels....... certs for Bank........occasional visits..... constant supervision......... and what each involves. Any ideas on costs would also be welcome.

Some posters may have assumed as they have an Architect on board he/ she will sort out problems, only to find the Arch was employed only to provide Certs to Bank, and that's it.

As I am not an Arch. I am unqualified to explain fully the differences.

LoTwan

We hired an engineer to design our buildings.* I contacted 2 architects and the engineer we ended up with and settled on the engineer for a variety of reasons.* I initially thought we were giving him free reign but when I started listing the things I didn’t want I realised that it wasn’t all that free afterall.* I have to say he fought hard to get the planners to let us build something that isn’t a traditional 2 storey farmhouse like a kid would draw as it simply wouldn’t work on our North facing site and we ended up with planning being granted first time, 10 day early in fact. *I am really glad we didn’t go into the process with a downloaded or hand drawn idea that he had to try and move us away from.* He actually came up with 3 concepts and let us choose what we wanted and then worked with the planners to turn it into something that everyone was happy with.
*
We hired him in stages.* Initially only for the design and planning application.* When it came time to build I got him to quote for monitoring (signoff of specific events) and supervision (checking the build progress & the work carried out by the individual tradesmen).* In the end I opted for the former simply because I wanted more supervision than he was offering in the supervision quote and didn’t have the money to pay for it.* I paid him for site visits to inspect:
*
-*** The dig/pour of the strips
-*** The installation of the hardcore & insulation & the pouring of the base
-*** The walls at first floor lintel height
-*** The walls when the gables were finished inc inspection of the wall plate.
-*** The roof completed (inc a site visit with the roofer & a product agent to decide on a vent to suit the design of the eaves)
-*** The windows once installed
-*** Final inspection
*
I also paid him for the construction drawings.* I did the site supervision with telephone/text/email backup from him (and the 2nd engineer) and it worked well but it was hard work.
*
He was very much a “talk to X” and most of my tradesmen thought he was over fussy/specific but I would rather that than sloppy.* I also used him as a buffer when a tradesman didn’t want to do what I was looking for.* I got my way each time (except for the eaves, but that is a different story)
*
I actually ended up with 2 supervising engineers because of the polishing filter and they are as fussy as each other (and work with each other all the time) so the guys on site didn’t know if they were coming or going.
*
I believe a lot of people suffer by expecting the builder to toe the line/work exactly to the spec without any supervision and I know a lot of people who don’t think they have any responsibility to even look at the work that has been done because that’s what they hired the builder for.* On the flip side of my interest in everything that was happening (I got up at 7am in January to watch the concrete being poured) is my OH who was uninterested in the whole process.* If the roles were reversed we would still be talking about starting the build rather than be living in it already.* It takes all sorts.

martinn123

Two questions to LoTwan above.

1. Can you expand on the different services in your opinion provided by Engineer/Architects..........and why you chose the former.
*
I would have imagined the design to planning aspects you describe would be more suited to an Architect......from my limited knowledge

*
2. Can you discuss the Fees aspect, and why you felt you could not go with the full supervision service?
*
thanks and well done.

LoTwan

Firstly I’m sorry for all the stars in the last post.* It was cut and pasted from an email on my phone.
*
Interesting questions.
*
I am very aware of the miles that my building project has travelled.* I was at the beginning and remain very keen to keep everything as local as possible.* I am not suggesting that there are no architects in my area of Westmeath but the two architects that were recommended to me travel great distances for work.* One lives in Mullingar but works in Dublin and the other lives in South County Dublin, works in Lucan and would have been driving to us on the Longford border in Westmeath.*
*
I had previous professional dealings with the engineer that I went with and while it is not standard to have your building designed by an engineer he has a lot of experience designing one off, non standard, residences in Westmeath.
*
I am aware that traditionally in the design process the architect designs and the engineer works out the engineering specifics and I am usually reluctant to discuss the fact that my engineer actually designed the buildings for that very reason.
*
My engineer lives and works in Mullingar.* I have the advantage of him being available with less than 24 hours notice to do a site visit which meant that when we were working in poor weather we were not delayed by having to wait for him to travel a long distance to sign off on different aspects of construction.* My tradesmen, most of whom live within 2 miles of my site, had never dealt with my engineer before but have since gone on to secure several contracts through him on the back of my “keep it local” building site.
*
I am sure there are many architects out there that could have designed equally beautiful buildings to put on my site but I am happy with my decision.* And the preliminary BER which gave my building a “B1 if built to regs” confirmed that we had hit a middle ground that I was happy with.* (we didn’t settle on a B1 BTW but I was never going to build a passive house either)
*
The cost of a full supervision service was almost 4 times the cost of the monitoring service that I went with and was almost 10% of the overall cost of construction and to be honest, I simply didn’t have it to spend.* I financed my build from personal funds and while I hold all the necessary documentation to satisfy a mortgage lender I didn’t have access to extra money.* So when I had to decide between extra insulation in the roof and a full supervision service, the insulation won.* I am fortunate though that both of my engineers were on the other end of the phone and were happy to let me pick their brains.
*
Full supervision was also only going to be 2 site visits per week and as my build took 12 weeks it wouldn’t have actually involved very much supervision.* In my capacity as project manager I was on site very day, twice some days and at times had 10+ tradesmen on site.* I simply couldn’t afford to pay my engineer to monitor everything in such a limited time frame.
*
Doing direct labour is not for everyone and at the start I didn’t think I would be up to the job but I am really glad I did it, I know the mistakes I made, I know the arguments that I should have insisted and followed through on, I know what I will do differently the next time and I am looking forward to doing it all again.

martinn123

Hi LoTwan,....many thanks for the detailed information*I am using the star, as for some reason my posts do not have paragraphs....* If I read your two posts correct, you paid the Engineer for about 10 visits, Certs Etc.....A full supervision cost, would be X 4.....But your build took 12 weeks X 2 visits= 24.........Why 4 times the cost.....? Also can you comment on the quoted prices, were there any difference between the costs sought by an Engineer, and an Architect.

LoTwan

Typically what I built doesn’t get built in 12 weeks.* If it had been built in the “usual” amount of time I would have ended up with more site visits from the engineer in a supervisory capacity which was included in the cost.* But, if I had left him to supervise it and gone with his time frame it would have taken longer and would therefore have cost me more in rent along with everything else.
*
I am not near my laptop and even though it was less than a year ago I have no recollection of what the fee difference would have been for the architect vs the engineer.

martinn123

LoTwan wrote: »

Typically what I built doesn’t get built in 12 weeks.*

<SNIP>

If it had been built in the “usual” amount of time I would have ended up with more site visits from the engineer in a supervisory capacity which was included in the cost.* But, if I had left him to supervise it and gone with his time frame it would have taken longer and would therefore have cost me more in rent along with everything else.

*
You seem to be saying as you took control, you achieved a saving in time, over that it would have taken, under the Supervision of your engineer.?Am I reading this correct,

I am not near my laptop and even though it was less than a year ago I have no recollection of what the fee difference would have been for the architect vs the engineer.

If you come across this detail, please post, assuming there is any difference, thanks


Mod edit: Asking and answering the above comment (now removed) will only drag this thread off topic

Slig

sydthebeat wrote: »

i think some of the problems extends from the myriad of "building professionals" available at domestic scale building. Its not unusual to see engineers, architects and technicians all being involved as the "building professional" at planning and construction stage.
Each profession has its own specialities, while also having a broad knowledge on the others area. Engineers focus on structure, Architects on design, and Technicians on building physics. each may be able to give detailed and informed responses to questions about their particular area, but may be fuzzy or incomplete in responses to questions outside their comfort zone. Thus, clients, expecting their "building professional" to be all encompassing, may feel disappointed by some aspect of the service.

There seems to be a reluctance to equate value to design.

Thats one thing that is never really made clear, different professions have different areas of expertise. This is usually clearer on large projects where there would be enough work to justify having a full design team of structural, civil & mech and elec engineers, quantity surveyors, architects and technicians among others.

For a domestic house planning application many of the areas these specialists cover can be covered by one experienced professional be they architect, technician or engineer, even cad technician or draftsman.

I'm a typical qualified Architectural Technician with about 10 years work experience, I wasnt the top of my class in college but like most arch techs, engineers and architects I see my qualification as a foundation and am continually building on it.
The last time I did a loading calculation for a beam was in college, however, I know from experience what sized lintel would be needed for most domestic spans. This role should be carried out by an engineer. Also, many of the structural details you'd find in a domestic house are standard details easily available to anybody from Homebond or the DOE.
Where a surveyor would usually be required to carry out a topographical or contour survey of a large site, for a domestic site usually all that is required is a couple of spot levels, finished floor levels and a road level which can all be done by a compitent person with a staff and automatic level.
The same can be said about mech and elec, for a domestic house a little knowledge and lots of experience will usually be sufficent for services drawings.
I'm also a qualified BER assessor but I did the courses solely to understand the procedures and see how the system works and I use this knowledge to advise clients on how to get both the best practical energy saving and BER.
Where a quantity surveyor is always the best person to price a building project I can still give an estimated cost and am expected to know how much different products cost, which design will be cheaper and the difference between good value and cheap.
Personally, I dont do bank certs, but I do carry out site inspections, liase with builders and trades, draw up emergency details and drawings and send out tenders for products and services all stuff that should be done by an site engineer

That said, Technically, even for a small project there should be a services engineer, a site surveyor, a ber assessor, a quantity surveyor etc.....

Basically what I'm trying to ask is why do "architects" get such a hard time over justifying their fees? I just handed over €50 to a doctor for the privilege of sitting in her waiting room for an hour and a half and a 15min eye and blood pressure exam for my driving licence renewal.

The planning application syatem in this country is designed so that you dont need to be a house designing professional to submit a planning application. Anybody that can draw (and I dont mean in Autocad, I mean pencil and paper!!) can lodge a planning application and just because a building gets planning permission doesnt automatically mean that it complies with the building regulations or that it can physically be built.

BryanF

Slig wrote: »

Basically what I'm trying to ask is why do "architects" get such a hard time over justifying their fees? I just handed over €50 to a doctor for the privilege of sitting in her waiting room for an hour and a half and a 15min eye and blood pressure exam for my driving licence renewal.

+ 1
good service can't be guaranteed for free.. archs/archs techs have had their services eroded by other trades ( & reduced market). I too can do BERs but that does not mean that in 5 days(or a Greenworks 3 day course) that I'm qualified to give advice to a home owners or self-builders. While I disagree with the RIAI lobbying & seeking a 'closed shop' what else can they do with an onslaught of advertised 'building professionals'. For me a lot of this comes back to a lack of local authority building control or at least (IMO) the removal of self certifying tradesmen, (not to give d average tradesman a bad rep, just, as they may admit, often some informed direction as necessary)

glad to be back on OP topic

dan_d

Were I building, I would hire an architect/architectural technician for input and ideas on the house layout, and also assistance on putting together drawings and spec -ing finishes - tile types, fixtures and fittings (though most of those I could chose myself).

Mostly I would chose the architect for input on the house layout - sometimes they have good suggestions on ways to lay out the rooms. Also they can give input on energy saving heating/lighting/drainage methods.

The engineer would be involved for structural elements. Most likely the ground floor slab, the roof and the foundations. Probably also any drainage around the house, including the run out to the sewage tank. Also any unusual structural elements. Fundamentally, anything that's holding the house up, the engineer would do.

The builder would be building to drawings produced by the architect/engineer. Appreciate any and all suggestions, but if I'm not happy with the suggestion or what he's doing, I'd be going back to the engineer.

To be honest, the architect would be a "nice to have" as I could design the house layout and do the drawings myself. The engineer would be a "must have" - or at least a "must consult" - for any structural elements.

But then, I'm a civil engineer and have a few years experience on a construction site behind me.That's how it works in the construction industry.Architects make it look pretty and spec the fixtures and fittings, and worry about meeting fire regs etc....engineers make it stand up.
And the builder (should) do what they're told!!!

muffler

dan_d wrote: »

engineers make it stand up.

Viagra would be a cheaper option :pac:













sorry, couldn't resist

dan_d

muffler wrote: »

Viagra would be a cheaper option :pac:

sorry, couldn't resist

From the engineer's point of view, it'd be a hell of a lot simpler too....:p

(I'll give you that one:D)

Slig

dan_d wrote: »

Were I building, I would hire an architect/architectural technician for input and ideas on the house layout, and also assistance on putting together drawings and spec -ing finishes - tile types, fixtures and fittings (though most of those I could chose myself).

Mostly I would chose the architect for input on the house layout - sometimes they have good suggestions on ways to lay out the rooms. Also they can give input on energy saving heating/lighting/drainage methods.

The engineer would be involved for structural elements. Most likely the ground floor slab, the roof and the foundations. Probably also any drainage around the house, including the run out to the sewage tank. Also any unusual structural elements. Fundamentally, anything that's holding the house up, the engineer would do.

The builder would be building to drawings produced by the architect/engineer. Appreciate any and all suggestions, but if I'm not happy with the suggestion or what he's doing, I'd be going back to the engineer.

To be honest, the architect would be a "nice to have" as I could design the house layout and do the drawings myself. The engineer would be a "must have" - or at least a "must consult" - for any structural elements.

But then, I'm a civil engineer and have a few years experience on a construction site behind me.That's how it works in the construction industry.Architects make it look pretty and spec the fixtures and fittings, and worry about meeting fire regs etc....engineers make it stand up.
And the builder (should) do what they're told!!!

As I've said on previous threads I have worked for both Architects and Engineers in the past and even now I do a fair share of contracting (drawing) work for both and the difference in profession is huge.

The architect doesnt just make the building look pretty they actually space plan, design how the spaces or rooms flow and design to the clients tastes and lifestyles. I have seen perfectly good floor plans butchered by architects and only when I went on site could I see the reason. Its not about making the house look pretty its about making it work over its lifetime and in its surroundings, in fact some of the most architecturally successful buildings were god awful looking (thanks Corbusier:D). A good architect will be more adventurous with materials and systems which often causes issues with building as a layout or details could be difficult to build properly on site but will be well worth the effort over the long term.

The engineer (and I'm throwing in draftsmen, cad technicians, quantity surveyors and anyone that designs houses with no design training or out of a book into this category) is only concerned with how the building goes up and as far as design goes its glue a feature to a box and the feature itself is something that has been widely done before and been proven not to cause too many problems to build like bay windows or conservatories. Its design thats led by single or two storey, standard window sizes and drawing templates. Stairs has to go in the entrance hall, kitchen sink has to be under the kitchen window, Utility has to be at the back and accessed from the kitchen. Tart up the front elevation (side facing the driveway) with stone cladding and hardwood doors but stick your sewer pipes and services on a blank back wall even if its the most prominently viewed from the road or surrounds. Where the reason for planning where things go is "because thats the way its always done." I'm not saying its always wrong, experience can show what works and what doesnt but if you want a housing estate house why not BUY a housing estate house thats serviced by public amenities.

I know it sounds rudimentary but getting an architecturally designed house is like getting a fitted suit, the material may look like it came off a set of curtains but it will fit so well that you wont care, it will make you feel confident and special. Although you can pick up a shirt and pair of trousers for less in pennys its not the same.

My point, however, is what does a person that has decided to build their own house think they need from us? Do they just want their own design drawn up and built or do they actually want the architectural package but are afraid that they will be bullied into design desisions they dont agree with or given a massive bill for a house that cant be built? What do people not intimately familiar with the design team members think when they look for a planning application to be done, who would/did you hire and why?

martinn123

Slig wrote: »

My point, however, is what does a person that has decided to build their own house think they need from us? Do they just want their own design drawn up and built or do they actually want the architectural package but are afraid that they will be bullied into design desisions they dont agree with or given a massive bill for a house that cant be built? What do people not intimately familiar with the design team members think when they look for a planning application to be done, who would/did you hire and why?

In my case I hired an Architect, at our first meeting I stated we had a budget that was limited, and that we required a home, not a house.He outlined the external types preferred by local planners, and set about drawing up plans to suit our site, circumstances and budget.Next meeting with the external design OK, we set about making the internal, ( the bit you live in ) work for our family.For example we like to entertain, so a Living Room, leading to a Dining Room, leading to a Conservatory, leading to a large patio, is one side of our ground floor. each room can be self contained, or by opening all the double doors, on parliament hinges we can accomodate up to 85 guests.Other changes to the ''normal'' layout catered for our 2 student children, who have bedrooms, baths/ shower etc, and sitting room upstairs, while we adults have our bed/ ensuite downstairs. So all the computer equipt, music systems, hand held gadgets, are out of our area. ( I control the SkyBox)The build was by direct labour, and we had a site meeting every Sat, where we reviewed work done, and scheduled following week.So to answer your question we went the Architect route, but on our terms. I would have loved to let his creative juices flow, but could not afford it.We have a functional home, built within budget......and on time.Its not made from curtain material, its not from Pennies, it fits well, and its great to live in.

Slig

martinn123 wrote: »

In my case I hired an Architect, at our first meeting I stated we had a budget that was limited, and that we required a home, not a house.He outlined the external types preferred by local planners, and set about drawing up plans to suit our site, circumstances and budget.Next meeting with the external design OK, we set about making the internal, ( the bit you live in ) work for our family.For example we like to entertain, so a Living Room, leading to a Dining Room, leading to a Conservatory, leading to a large patio, is one side of our ground floor. each room can be self contained, or by opening all the double doors, on parliament hinges we can accomodate up to 85 guests.Other changes to the ''normal'' layout catered for our 2 student children, who have bedrooms, baths/ shower etc, and sitting room upstairs, while we adults have our bed/ ensuite downstairs. So all the computer equipt, music systems, hand held gadgets, are out of our area. ( I control the SkyBox)The build was by direct labour, and we had a site meeting every Sat, where we reviewed work done, and scheduled following week.So to answer your question we went the Architect route, but on our terms. I would have loved to let his creative juices flow, but could not afford it.We have a functional home, built within budget......and on time.Its not made from curtain material, its not from Pennies, it fits well, and its great to live in.

You see to me that sounds like a good service that most people would be happy with, except maybe the plans following the elevs but thats just me.
If you dont mind me asking how much, ball park were their fees in relation to the overall build cost? do you think it was value for money or should it have been cheaper?

martinn123

Slig wrote: »

You see to me that sounds like a good service that most people would be happy with, except maybe the plans following the elevs but thats just me.
If you dont mind me asking how much, ball park were their fees in relation to the overall build cost? do you think it was value for money or should it have been cheaper?

I said at the outset, that I had a limited budget, so I approached Fee's along the same lines as purchasing materials, haggle......... I am not in favour of %'s as there is little incentive to keep to the budget. I agreed a Flat Fee at the outset, which on completion turned out to be 5% of the Total building cost, this covered everything from design, to planning, site visits and Certs on Completion.Good Value for money, yes, could it be cheaper...probably not.

Juantorena

Slig wrote: »

As I've said on previous threads I have worked for both Architects and Engineers in the past and even now I do a fair share of contracting (drawing) work for both and the difference in profession is huge.

The architect doesnt just make the building look pretty they actually space plan, design how the spaces or rooms flow and design to the clients tastes and lifestyles. I have seen perfectly good floor plans butchered by architects and only when I went on site could I see the reason. Its not about making the house look pretty its about making it work over its lifetime and in its surroundings, in fact some of the most architecturally successful buildings were god awful looking (thanks Corbusier:D). A good architect will be more adventurous with materials and systems which often causes issues with building as a layout or details could be difficult to build properly on site but will be well worth the effort over the long term.

The engineer (and I'm throwing in draftsmen, cad technicians, quantity surveyors and anyone that designs houses with no design training or out of a book into this category) is only concerned with how the building goes up and as far as design goes its glue a feature to a box and the feature itself is something that has been widely done before and been proven not to cause too many problems to build like bay windows or conservatories. Its design thats led by single or two storey, standard window sizes and drawing templates. Stairs has to go in the entrance hall, kitchen sink has to be under the kitchen window, Utility has to be at the back and accessed from the kitchen. Tart up the front elevation (side facing the driveway) with stone cladding and hardwood doors but stick your sewer pipes and services on a blank back wall even if its the most prominently viewed from the road or surrounds. Where the reason for planning where things go is "because thats the way its always done." I'm not saying its always wrong, experience can show what works and what doesnt but if you want a housing estate house why not BUY a housing estate house thats serviced by public amenities.

I know it sounds rudimentary but getting an architecturally designed house is like getting a fitted suit, the material may look like it came off a set of curtains but it will fit so well that you wont care, it will make you feel confident and special. Although you can pick up a shirt and pair of trousers for less in pennys its not the same.

My point, however, is what does a person that has decided to build their own house think they need from us? Do they just want their own design drawn up and built or do they actually want the architectural package but are afraid that they will be bullied into design desisions they dont agree with or given a massive bill for a house that cant be built? What do people not intimately familiar with the design team members think when they look for a planning application to be done, who would/did you hire and why?

Hopefully not derailing your thread here but a question for you Slig - and any of the other members who work in the profession at whatever level: Why did you study architecture? What interested you in it?

I have a very deep - but laypersons - interest in domestic architecture and, if I'd been a bit cleverer, I'd love to have studied it. I have my reason(s) but I'd be curious to know why those that have entered the profession did so...I think it may be relevant to the topic.

Slig

Juantorena wrote: »

Hopefully not derailing your thread here but a question for you Slig - and any of the other members who work in the profession at whatever level: Why did you study architecture? What interested you in it?

I have a very deep - but laypersons - interest in domestic architecture and, if I'd been a bit cleverer, I'd love to have studied it. I have my reason(s) but I'd be curious to know why those that have entered the profession did so...I think it may be relevant to the topic.

The very first day I went into Tech drawing class in secondry school I knew that I wanted to keep doing it, I loved thinking mechanically not mathimatically and definately not artistically:p. That pretty much narrowed it down to something in architecture or engineering and the various sub fields.

I didnt really like the sound of Architecture as it sounded too much like an office job and Engineering involved way too much maths. I wanted something "on-site" but not actually involving any manual labour.
I did a bit of research and found the happy medium which was Architectural Technology (my career guidance counciller was pretty sure I wouldnt get a good enough leaving cert to study Architecture or Engineering anyway.)

When I went to college my concept of the career I had chosen was completely changed. I learned nearly as much watching the new college building being built next door as I did in the class room and found that the area of the job that I liked best was detailing, something I never even knew existed before. I like figuring how things work and making them work better stuff that most normal people would probably find really boring.

Unfortunately Architectural Technology isnt really a defined profession in this country, I dont even think I rightly know what I'm meant to do. Its viewed somewhere between architecture and engineering by most people IMO. We know too much about building technologies and construction methods to be architects but not enough to be engineers and too much about form and function to be engineers but not enough to be architects. I suppose you could say that we combine the engineers structure and the architects form to make the actual building but mostly concentrating on insulation and waterproofing with a view to design.

Hope this answers your question somewhat