Engaging an Architect.

martinn123

Over the past months, I have contributed to various threads on the services provided by Architects/ Technicians / Engineers, in self build and extentions......

One common theme is a lack of understanding on the various levels of service provided. Also confusion on the Fees charged.


It seems to vary from, Certs for Bank, to partial supervision, to total supervision. It's fair to say the Fees also vary depending on the service provided.

So can I invite comments on anyone's interaction with an Architect, etc the level of service agreed, and perhaps the Fees involved.

In addition perhaps one of the Professionals, who hang out here could provide an overview on the different areas of supervision, and Fees involved.

Unfortunately, some posters have come here when difficulties arise, and sometimes its obvious, they may not have understood exactly who is supervising who.

Self build and Extentions, are problematic enough, without discovering the Professional is not as engaged as you thought. And from the Professionals viewpoint, I am sure its dissapointing having agreed a Fee for a certain service, that more is expected, at a lower price.

We are all under pressure to generate income, and prices are being driven down, does this effect quality......of course.

So any comments please to help everyone understand what these guy's actually do....but let's not turn it into a massive moan against Architects so post your good stories as well........

sinnerboy

I'm not a member of RIAI and they are not the only option to seek an Architectural Services. But this is a useful starting point.

It states

The RIAI publishes agreements between clients and architects for domestic work, which fully explains the scope of the services available to the client.

and offers downloads of the front pages of these agreements only. I think they should offer the full texts myself if they seriously wish to reach consumers....

There is also a survey of fees from 2007 , such a long time ago now.

One trend to note which often surprises posters here - extensions and renovations cost more than new build in % fee terms. More often than not the existing structures ( and adjoining owners ) impose complications that a clean field site new build simply does not.

martinn123

sinnerboy wrote: »

I'm not a member of RIAI and they are not the only option to seek an Architectural Services. But this is a useful starting point.

It states and offers downloads of the front pages of these agreements only. I think they should offer the full texts myself if they seriously wish to reach consumers....

I agree, it gives the impression of a closed shop, with info only available to a select few

There is also a survey of fees from 2007 , such a long time ago now.

OK its from 2007 but a few interesting points..........One Off Housing, up to 200K....Fees vary from 5-16%..............Renovations up to 200K........Fees vary from 4-16%................House Ext up to 1/2M.........Fees vary from 5-16%...........This is crazy, how as a Profession can Arch's defend such a variance in fees for the same work. No mention made of Flat Fees at all, is it illegal? or just against the RIAI's interest

One trend to note which often surprises posters here - extensions and renovations cost more than new build in % fee terms. More often than not the existing structures ( and adjoining owners ) impose complications that a clean field site new build simply does not.

No problem with that, it it obvious that a smaller project with complications will cost more % wise than a clean site.

sinnerboy

The survey must not be taken as representing, mandatory, minimum or recommended charges. The illustrated graphs provide a reference to the consumer for the purpose of negotiation and agreement between client and architect.

No it's not illegal . They just reported findings with the above rider.

And as for variations in fees - as always shop around.

martinn123

sinnerboy wrote: »

And as for variations in fees - as always shop around.

And with the RIAI survey showing Fees varying between 6-15% of build price.......you ain't going to get advice better than that statment....

sydthebeat

martinn123 wrote: »

And with the RIAI survey showing Fees varying between 6-15% of build price.......you ain't going to get advice better than that statment....

thats ok if you are comparing like with like....

however picture two extensions, both say below 150k.
One might be standard cavity wall, pitched slated roof with box windows...

The other may be flat roofed, cubist, externally insulated with bris soleil, zinc clad, and 'shadow gap'ped all over the place..... the skill of the designer and the individuality of the design is the major factor in the difference in fees... not simply one practise charging more for the same project.
Also, the scale of engagement could also be completely different. The 15% could include kitchen design, furniture design, full finishing spec including ironmongery specification etc. The 6% could simply be a standard generic specification.

In my experience, the value for money increases with the % charged ie the time involved for a full service is certainly (in the case mentioned above) much larger than the 9% difference quoted....

splashthecash

I have a design and planning consultant - not a fully qualified architect, but has had excellent result in gaining planning permission in my area.

The price he gave me includes for the following:

• designing plans
• assisting with all paperwork involved
• lodging the application
• all further additional information required after lodging the application

We were thinking about going to an architect but decided that knowing the system and being able to get the permission is just as important. Myself and my wife will be there to help with the designing of the house.

Am I missing out on anything important that he should be doing?

What do you call the detailed kind of plans...the ones with the electricity\multimedia wires, etc..? Who would normally do these?

martinn123

sydthebeat wrote: »

thats ok if you are comparing like with like....

however picture two extensions, both say below 150k.
One might be standard cavity wall, pitched slated roof with box windows...

The other may be flat roofed, cubist, externally insulated with bris soleil, zinc clad, and 'shadow gap'ped all over the place..... the skill of the designer and the individuality of the design is the major factor in the difference in fees... not simply one practise charging more for the same project.
Also, the scale of engagement could also be completely different. The 15% could include kitchen design, furniture design, full finishing spec including ironmongery specification etc. The 6% could simply be a standard generic specification.

In my experience, the value for money increases with the % charged ie the time involved for a full service is certainly (in the case mentioned above) much larger than the 9% difference quoted....

The fees indicated in the survey for domestic projects are for a full architectural service, i.e. from commencement, initial design, finalised design, planning application, tenders and construction on site to practical completion, and the issue of the final certificate.

OK no two projects are the same, but I am just confirming/ illustrating the point raised by the survey that a large variance in fees exists.

sydthebeat

martinn123 wrote: »

OK no two projects are the same, but I am just confirming/ illustrating the point raised by the survey that a large variance in fees exists.

and im just clarifying your point that the variance exists because like is not being compared to like....

i dont expect to pay the same for a new skoda compared to a new lexus.. although both are cars.....

sinnerboy

splashthecash wrote: »

I have a design and planning consultant - not a fully qualified architect, but has had excellent result in gaining planning permission in my area.

The price he gave me includes for the following:

• designing plans
• assisting with all paperwork involved
• lodging the application
• all further additional information required after lodging the application

We were thinking about going to an architect but decided that knowing the system and being able to get the permission is just as important. Myself and my wife will be there to help with the designing of the house.

Am I missing out on anything important that he should be doing?

For as far as Planning Permission - no not really . If it's a new house then it would advisable to have a DEAP analysis done now - either directly with your agent or appoint a BER assessor to work together with him to check the design before lodging.

splashthecash wrote: »

What do you call the detailed kind of plans...the ones with the electricity\multimedia wires, etc..? Who would normally do these?

They are called working drawings. Architects and Architectural Technicians are best to select to prepare these for builders to price.

And best to ensure that what is priced for is actually built during the works! Appointing someone to certify draw down mortgage payments only will not ensure this....

martinn123

sydthebeat wrote: »

and im just clarifying your point that the variance exists because like is not being compared to like....

i dont expect to pay the same for a new skoda compared to a new lexus.. although both are cars.....

sydthebeat, blame the RIAI, not me, they published the survey with the statment

The fees indicated in the survey for domestic projects are for a full architectural service, i.e. from commencement, initial design, finalised design, planning application, tenders and construction on site to practical completion, and the issue of the final certificate.

maybe they should have included your comparisons........I am merely commenting on it and confirming synnerboy's advice........shop around...........Now where did I park my skoda.

sydthebeat

martin, theres no 'blaming' necessary... im merely adding to the discussion.

martinn123

A question to self-builders. What drives your interaction with Arch./Tech/Engineer.........the design or the need to get planning permission.

In my case my Arch advised the style of house in favour with local planners, and while I had a lot of input to the internal design to make the home functional for my family, externally the over-riding factor was to get through the planning application.

I would have liked to have an Architectural Statment, as a home, given him free reign to let loose with his imagination, training, etc, but the practicality of just getting planning was the primary function at that stage.

So you have a site, a limited budget and the need for a home........how do you approach this initial stage of the process

splashthecash

martinn123 wrote: »

A question to self-builders. What drives your interaction with Arch./Tech/Engineer.........the design or the need to get planning permission.

In my case my Arch advised the style of house in favour with local planners, and while I had a lot of input to the internal design to make the home functional for my family, externally the over-riding factor was to get through the planning application.

I would have liked to have an Architectural Statment, as a home, given him free reign to let loose with his imagination, training, etc, but the practicality of just getting planning was the primary function at that stage.

So you have a site, a limited budget and the need for a home........how do you approach this initial stage of the process

Hey Martin, I'm in the same boat as you here....we have a site in mind and have decided to go with a guy who has worked in the area and has a very good success rate regarding getting PP. However, he is not an architect and apparently designing is not his strong suit but I don't mind this. Getting PP is the important thing, my wife and I will be there to help out with the design.

Theres no point in having a beautiful looking, modern and architectural stunning home if you have nowhere to put it!

creedp

martinn123 wrote: »

A question to self-builders. What drives your interaction with Arch./Tech/Engineer.........the design or the need to get planning permission.

In my case my Arch advised the style of house in favour with local planners, and while I had a lot of input to the internal design to make the home functional for my family, externally the over-riding factor was to get through the planning application.

I would have liked to have an Architectural Statment, as a home, given him free reign to let loose with his imagination, training, etc, but the practicality of just getting planning was the primary function at that stage.

So you have a site, a limited budget and the need for a home........how do you approach this initial stage of the process

I have to say that in my case I didn't consider an architect from a design perspective. We had loked at a number of different house designs by family, friends and aquaintances and decided we wanted a certain design which was pretty basic in terms of design so we went to an engineer who had obtained a number of PPs in the locality, the site is in planning sensitive area, and we asked him to submit our plans for approval. We did have numerous meetings/discussions with him on the design and in fairness he suggested a number of adjustments to our original proposal but essentially the basic design remained intact.

My problem is that I associated architect with design and therefore decided against hiring one. However, what has unfolded in terms of compliance with building regs and options in terms of improving the performance of the building fabric, e.g airtightness is what makes me really regret not getting an architect on board. My engineer was of very little/no assistance in this regard. I had to do all the research myself and upgrade the basic reg requirement post agreeing PP. This has meant constant arguments and bickering around extra's with builder and is basically a nightmare. Also because Im upgrading on a piecemeal basis there is a danger of the overall result not being a cohesive package - being good on one aspect but failing miserably on another.

So my regret on this issue is not having awareness at the beginning of the positive contribution other than for design purposes an architect could bring to the build. I'm not even getting into the fee issues because I would have gladly paid a decent fee to a guy who could have steered me through the unchartered wates I found my self in.

sydthebeat

creedp wrote: »

My problem is that I associated architect with design and therefore decided against hiring one.

why did you associate design as a negative? what were your assumptions?

creedp

sydthebeat wrote: »

why did you associate design as a negative? what were your assumptions?

No I certaintly don't associate design as a negative. What I meant was that we had already decided on a design so [thought] we didn't need further design input and because we only associated architects with design we didn't hire. You will note however in retrospect how I wished I had.

rayjdav

splashthecash wrote: »

Hey Martin, I'm in the same boat as you here....we have a site in mind and have decided to go with a guy who has worked in the area and has a very good success rate regarding getting PP. However, he is not an architect and apparently designing is not his strong suit but I don't mind this. Getting PP is the important thing, my wife and I will be there to help out with the design.

Theres no point in having a beautiful looking, modern and architectural stunning home if you have nowhere to put it!

Splashthecash,
Do you not think even before the off you are asking for trouble down the line, for yourself and from "The Boss", (wife). You say already he is not strong on design, and with all due respect, what relevant experience do you and your wife have either in design? Getting PP is important, but getting PP with a house that you can LIVE in is more important. An Arch/AT experienced in design, in consultation with yourself obviously, can/will give you both, no? So, in the overall context of a building budget, would you not see the employment of experience more important now than when you are trying to fit the square peg into the round hole down the line. Externally to the front it may suit for PP, and I take from your tone Bungalow Bliss is what you may end up with:eek:, trying to fit your familys daily living into that may not work, and you have to live there till whenever...

martinn123

splashthecash wrote: »

Hey Martin, I'm in the same boat as you here....we have a site in mind and have decided to go with a guy who has worked in the area and has a very good success rate regarding getting PP. However, he is not an architect and apparently designing is not his strong suit but I don't mind this. Getting PP is the important thing, my wife and I will be there to help out with the design.

Theres no point in having a beautiful looking, modern and architectural stunning home if you have nowhere to put it!

I have to agree with rayjdav above, especially reading creedp.You have gone down the ''lets get planning route'' as he did, now he is much further along the build, and regrets not having the assistance of an Architect, in solving problems as they arise.So perhaps once the planning phase is concluded you might reconsider.Best of luck either way

Mellor

martinn123 wrote: »

OK no two projects are the same, but I am just confirming/ illustrating the point raised by the survey that a large variance in fees exists.

But I think the problem is that its a terrible way to measure fees.

The fee should relate to the amount of work that the designer intends to do.
$200k spent on a large basic extension is a lot less work for the designer, compared to;
$200k spent of a very technical very modern design



How would flat fees be even possible?

martinn123

Mellor wrote: »

But I think the problem is that its a terrible way to measure fees.

I agree, but thats how the RIAI presented their survey, I have posted their accompanying statment, which gives the impression of comparing like with like.

The fee should relate to the amount of work that the designer intends to do.
$200k spent on a large basic extension is a lot less work for the designer, compared to;
$200k spent of a very technical very modern design

as sinnerboy said........shop around

How would flat fees be even possible?

Well you expect contractors to quote what is basically a flat fee, or a price for work put out to tender, al be it with a contingency.
So why would that not work for you, examine the project, estimate the amount of work involved and tender a price, ( with a contingency )
I appreciate its not how the profession usually works but changing times.....Solicitors used to charge a % for conveyance, now a flat fee is readily available

sydthebeat

martinn123 wrote: »

Well you expect contractors to quote what is basically a flat fee, or a price for work put out to tender, al be it with a contingency.
So why would that not work for you, examine the project, estimate the amount of work involved and tender a price, ( with a contingency )
I appreciate its not how the profession usually works but changing times.....Solicitors used to charge a % for conveyance, now a flat fee is readily available

In the case of contractors tendering, it is not a flat fee. If the tender conditions are detailed, then the fee structure is prescribed... but obviously changes from job to job.

We used to have a flat fee structure for planning during the 'good' days. Our planning fee was a basic on a " € per sq ft" basis.
However, policies in planning offices seem to change with the weather so it has become impossible to give a flat fee without investigating the project first. We have always had a policy of not charging extras during the planning stage, within reason, so the client knows exactly what the fee would be before hand.

martinn123

sydthebeat wrote: »

We used to have a flat fee structure for planning during the 'good' days. Our planning fee was a basic on a ; € per sq ft; basis.
However, policies in planning offices seem to change with the weather so it has become impossible to give a flat fee without investigating the project first. We have always had a policy of not charging extras during the planning stage, within reason, so the client knows exactly what the fee would be before hand.

So to follow your logic, it should be possible to give a Fee, ( having examined the project) for design, a Fee for planning, and thereafter a Fee structure based on say the number of site visits.Finally a Fee for Certification. Rather that a % of building costs.That would allow the client to pay for what he needs/ can afford, and avoid some of the misunderstandings we have seen on recent posts.

sydthebeat

martinn123 wrote: »

So to follow your logic, it should be possible to give a Fee, ( having examined the project) for design, a Fee for planning, and thereafter a Fee structure based on say the number of site visits.Finally a Fee for Certification. Rather that a % of building costs.That would allow the client to pay for what he needs/ can afford, and avoid some of the misunderstandings we have seen on recent posts.

I agree completely (jaysus dont fall down!! )

I dont believe in a % basis of the contract fee on a small domestic job because theres no incentive for the professional to economise for the client at tender stage. I can understand this basis for a fee at large scale, but not domestic.

martinn123

sydthebeat wrote: »

I agree completely (jaysus dont fall down!! )

Fall down........no I just framed your post.....that's the first time a Mod in this Forum agreed with anything I said........

I dont believe in a % basis of the contract fee on a small domestic job because theres no incentive for the professional to economise for the client at tender stage. I can understand this basis for a fee at large scale, but not domestic.

So advice to self-builders and extenders, get your Professional to quote you a fee structure based on, seperately....,Design, Planning Application, on going site visits, Stage Certs for bank, and Final Certification.......Don't be afraid to mix/match with others who may provide certain aspects, ( example....splashthecash's missus is doing the design )......Understand who is supervising what, and what you are paying for,....... sorted.

sydthebeat

martinn123 wrote: »

Fall down........no I just framed your post.....that's the first time a Mod in this Forum agreed with anything I said........


So advice to self-builders and extenders, get your Professional to quote you a fee structure based on, seperately....,Design, Planning Application, on going site visits, Stage Certs for bank, and Final Certification.......Don't be afraid to mix/match with others who may provide certain aspects, ( example....splashthecash's missus is doing the design )......Understand who is supervising what, and what you are paying for,....... sorted.

But, like any economy of scale, a professional may be willing to offer a smaller total fee if every service is being employed, rather than an individual pick n' mix type using different professionals.

Mellor

martinn123 wrote: »

Well you expect contractors to quote what is basically a flat fee, or a price for work put out to tender, al be it with a contingency.
So why would that not work for you, examine the project, estimate the amount of work involved and tender a price, ( with a contingency )
I appreciate its not how the profession usually works but changing times.....Solicitors used to charge a % for conveyance, now a flat fee is readily available

That's really not what happens at all.
If the work that is carried out varies from the tender, you get billed extra

martinn123 wrote: »

So to follow your logic, it should be possible to give a Fee, ( having examined the project) for design, a Fee for planning, and thereafter a Fee structure based on say the number of site visits.Finally a Fee for Certification. Rather that a % of building costs.That would allow the client to pay for what he needs/ can afford, and avoid some of the misunderstandings we have seen on recent posts.

That's exactly what happens in a lot of cases. Unless i'm misunderstanding you.
The client submits brief, professional offers a price for the job (itemised or not) And if there are variations, client is charged.

So advice to self-builders and extenders, get your Professional to quote you a fee structure based on, seperately....,Design, Planning Application, on going site visits, Stage Certs for bank, and Final Certification.......Don't be afraid to mix/match with others who may provide certain aspects, ( example....splashthecash's missus is doing the design )......Understand who is supervising what, and what you are paying for,....... sorted.

and don't be surprised if the prices don't all apply individually.

creedp

sydthebeat wrote: »

But, like any economy of scale, a professional may be willing to offer a smaller total fee if every service is being employed, rather than an individual pick n' mix type using different professionals.

Well I'm glad the war of the fees has come to an amicable conclusion:)

I would like to consider how the market architects expertise/benefits attached to hiring architects and similar professionals for self-builds. I think I said before when I attended a few self-build exhibitions I could talk to every class of a building professional/product supplier and afterwards I received no end of mailshots form the guys I spoke with and others who I never made contact with. However, this hard sell didn't extend to architects and the like. Is this something that should be considered to ensure self-builders are more aware of these benefits?

sinnerboy

Does not mean flash , fancy , expensive or unbuildable which appears to be a common mis conception.

It does mean the right spaces in the right places which flow together to work and feel and look beautiful - with the clients detailed requirements integrated - to suit their budget and taste.

It is vital. Simple . Often elusive. It is affordable if you seek it out !

martinn123

sinnerboy wrote: »

Does not mean flash , fancy , expensive or unbuildable which appears to be a common mis conception.

It does mean the right spaces in the right places which flow together to work and feel and look beautiful - with the clients detailed requirements integrated - to suit their budget and taste.

It is vital. Simple . Often elusive. It is affordable if you seek it out !

Couple of good quotes there for an advertising campaign...Can I ask those who are engaged in a building project, to share their thoughts...Did you use an Architect, if so....why. If Not.......why not...I posted previously that I did and found the experience positive, and it contributed to the fabric of my home...creedp has posted that he did not and now regrets that...What experience's are in this Forum, perhaps we can burst a few of the common mis-conceptions that sinnerboy mentions.

sinnerboy

Now what is not clear from the RIAI report ( but should be Martin123;)) is that there are some who commission Architects to make a "statement" . And such clients will pay for this and because such projects demand additional time talent and skill , fees will reflect this.

Even if you as a self builder don't want a "statement" project you do need good design as I have described it above - and if you seek it out carefully fees will not be expensive.

The other vital reason to appoint an Architect ( when I say that I mean Architect or Architectural Technician ) is to see that the project is built properly , on time and on budget.

Architects achieve this ( and I am being very brief here and encompassing a lot of processes / work ) by

• Acuaratley assessing and describing works in drawings specification and contract documentation before any builder gets near your site .
  
• Regular site inspections to monitor works quality and progress and vitally controlling payments to the builder. " If you don't fix it I won't pay you" never fails. Clients are almost always very relieved to have distance in these matters - which arose in every single job I worked on over 25 years.
  
• At completion certifications to satisfy future conveyancing transactions ( selling or re mortgaging )

Fees for these services cost more than an appointment for mortgage draw downs only. This appointment covers the bank .

martinn123

sinnerboy wrote: »

The other vital reason to appoint an Architect is to see that the project is built properly , on time and on budget.

.

Now you are taking the pizz,

question...........anyone out there complete.....on time and on budget, after engaging an Architect to provide a full service

sydthebeat

martinn123 wrote: »

Now you are taking the pizz,

question...........anyone out there complete.....on time and on budget.

clarify that to read
"question...........anyone out there complete.....on time and on budget, after engaging an architect to provide full service."

please.

I guarantee the vast majority of projects that went over time and budget did not have a professional administering a contract on it.

Mellor

sydthebeat wrote: »

I guarantee the vast majority of projects that went over time and budget did not have a professional administering a contract on it.

And I guarantee the ones that did were due to uncontrolible circumstances or mainly down to the clients fault.

Pick a random episode of grand designs and see

sinnerboy

martinn123 wrote: »

Now you are taking the pizz,

question...........anyone out there complete.....on time and on budget.

Many , many times actually. Not every time of course.

Usual reasons for delay in order of frequency

1. windows delivery not as promised
2. client unable to select Client specific item (kitchen \ bathroom fittings \ floor wall tiling ) to programme I gave them on Day 1 of the build.
3. weather

95% of clients are reasonable and see clearly and accept responsibility for their part in delays. And are satisfied that neither architect or builder let them down. They DO end up with a feeling ownership of the process i.e. if the project came in 4 or 6 weeks late they are happy that the time they took to select their client specific items was time well spent.

Usual reasons for cost over runs

1. Client chooses to spend more on PC sums than the cost plan I gave them on Day 1
2. Client expands the brief e.g. project is initially a ground floor only extension and half way through the works adds in refurb of bathroom upstairs , attic conversion and extensive garden works. ( Happened loads of times that one )
3. Unforeseen items. Usually buried in the ground or concealed behind finishes

You see with a no BS , no wishfull thinking cost plan once again , - at completion , 95% of clients are reasonable and see clearly and accept responsibility for their part in budget over runs. And are satisfied that neither architect or builder let them down or ripped them off. They DO end up with a feeling ownership of the process i.e. if the project came in 10 or 15% over they are happy that the extra spend they choose to make for client specific items was money well spent.

needlemouse

Hi guy's im new in posting in this forum but i find this a really interesting topic of discussion and some points being raised are very valid but others concern me at the same time. Just to let you know where i'm coming from and on what side of the discussion i am on from the outset, Im an Architectural Graduate (Part 2) who in collaboration with other Architects work in this field as a designer. I'm from the North Kildare area but we do work countrywide.

Whilst a detailed fee agreement is a very important part of any agreement between client and architect, both parties from the outset need to understand the full scope of works and the architect should outline this in writing to the client and the client should reflect this in a letter of appointment. Therefore everybody knows what they are getting themselves in for. Specifications and budget also need to be set out very early and adhered to from all sides. A good designer will find ways to specify things so that they can be built cheaply and efficiently and should try to save the client money where possible.

Fees do vary from Architect to Architect within this scope of works but so does quality and care and that's why comments like below catch my attention.

splashthecash wrote: »

Hey Martin, I'm in the same boat as you here....we have a site in mind and have decided to go with a guy who has worked in the area and has a very good success rate regarding getting PP. However, he is not an architect and apparently designing is not his strong suit but I don't mind this. Getting PP is the important thing, my wife and I will be there to help out with the design.

Theres no point in having a beautiful looking, modern and architectural stunning home if you have nowhere to put it!

Whilst success rate in planning terms is one major issue in the whole process, it is the least detailed side of the design process for a designer and therefore the least time consuming, however fees do not reflect this. A designer in my opinion has a duty of care to the client that extends beyond just simply drawing a house. this duty of care extends to giving learned input and trying to make your quality of home life better (something which architectural training tries to teach us).

When picking someone to design your house you should do just that, pick someone to design your house. Designing extends beyond the layout and elevations it seeps into every single item of the house and site. A good designer should questions what you want from the house and how you see yourself living in it for potentially a very long time and then with their training puts these thoughts on paper and create something which offers more than just a place to sleep. its important here to remember that, you pay the architects fees so you make the final decisions.

Architecturally modern and stunning homes do get planning permission but they dont necessarily make good homes and that should always be considered. Like all things it requires careful thought and consultation with the planning authority and at the end of the day beauty is in the eye of the beholder. What may look like a dormer bungalow on the planning drawings does not necessarily mean that it can not be Architecturally modern, interesting / stunning and a bloody good place to live that adds value to your life.

I cant really go further through words to explain the benefits of what im trying to say. At the end of the day we deal initially in drawings and pictures .
Alan

Moderator note edited to comply with charter

galwaytt

martinn123 wrote: »

Now you are taking the pizz,

question...........anyone out there complete.....on time and on budget, after engaging an Architect to provide a full service

I'm forced to agree with martinn123 on this....

sydthebeat wrote: »

clarify that to read
"question...........anyone out there complete.....on time and on budget, after engaging an architect to provide full service."

please.

I guarantee the vast majority of projects that went over time and budget did not have a professional administering a contract on it.

As someone who does, for a day-job, execute, and turn architect's design's into on-the-ground product, I'm afraid I disagree. Far too many design's are drawn in isolation of engineering or execution in mind. When those people who are required to execute get involved (say the SE), and sometimes novel or unique solutions get involved, build costs go up - but it's driven by the requirement to deliver the design...... To me, that implies a basic disconnect in the design process between (say), the clients wishes (or expectations) and that which is practical to delivery (and I don't mean physically - the most common constraint is cost). Consider the plethora of corner and oriel windows people have been churning out in recent times.

Mellor wrote: »

And I guarantee the ones that did were due to uncontrolible circumstances or mainly down to the clients fault.

Pick a random episode of grand designs and see

Nope, not wearing that for a minute. Guarantee it's the client's fault, ergo, not the architect's....?? That's a brave statement...........I don't need to see GD, (although I love watching it......), I have reams' of folder's of the opposite experience in my office...

needlemouse wrote: »

.. A good designer will find ways to specify things so that they can be built cheaply and efficiently and should try to save the client money where possible.

Fees do vary from Architect to Architect within this scope of works but so does quality and care and that's why comments like below catch my attention.

I'll assume you don't mean building 'cheaply'. Cheap has a connotation outside cost, to quality. You should aim to build well, but competitively - and that's a world of a difference. And cost needs to include the execution of those special details, or finishes......this is where I see things fall down most often.

needlemouse wrote: »

Whilst success rate in planning terms is one major issue in the whole process, it is the least detailed side of the design process for a designer and therefore the least time consuming, however fees do not reflect this.

I'm afraid it is more than a major issue - it's huge. Day-in and day-out, I deal with people who are subject to a planning system that is almost completely arbitrary. A system that touts the use of pre-planning as a constructive process.......until you lodge your application......and are then told that 'pre-planning has nothing to do with them'. This happened to me inside the last week. A client who has had 2 pre-planning meetings, the last of which was to confirm that the plans-to-be-lodged were not only in accordance with the outcome of the pre-planning process, but the recommendations of the officer in question....................and yet, right at the end of the planning process, and after RFI's.........the application gets refused on a particular ground that turns out to be in direct contradiction of the (professional, and expert, remember..) advice of the pre-planning officer. For this reason, people are (rightly) concerned that their efforts (and €€) is not wasted - I don't know anyone who can go through the design process more than once, financially, and so Planning becomes a huge part in the actual design. Often it's the 'least offence' approach. Not idea - but that's the fear people have.

needlemouse wrote: »

.. A designer in my opinion has a duty of care to the client that extends beyond just simply drawing a house. this duty of care extends to giving learned input and trying to make your quality of home life better (something which architectural training tries to teach us)... its important here to remember that, you pay the architects fees so you make the final decisions.

Indeed - and can I add that, imho, that includes providing the the (paying, remember) client with the CAD file as well. Or tablets of stone, of such be his choice of delivery.

On a general note, I think all fees should be 'fee simple'. There is no justification for %-based fees. Have we learned nothing from our national financial position ..?

Mellor

galwaytt wrote: »

Nope, not wearing that for a minute. Guarantee it's the client's fault, ergo, not the architect's....?? That's a brave statement...........I don't need to see GD, (although I love watching it......), I have reams' of folder's of the opposite experience in my office...

I never said that it was guaranteed to be the clients fault.

I guaranteed that they were down to unforseen delays. Which in my experience counts for most of the delays in all jobs.

After that clients change make up a portion.
And obviously some professional delays occur

As someone who does, for a day-job, execute, and turn architect's design's into on-the-ground product, I'm afraid I disagree. Far too many design's are drawn in isolation of engineering or execution in mind. When those people who are required to execute get involved (say the SE), and sometimes novel or unique solutions get involved, build costs go up - but it's driven by the requirement to deliver the design...... To me, that implies a basic disconnect in the design process between (say), the clients wishes (or expectations) and that which is practical to delivery (and I don't mean physically - the most common constraint is cost). Consider the plethora of corner and oriel windows people have been churning out in recent times.

Well that's just bad design. I don't see how that's relevant?
there are professionals in every industry who are poor at their job. I'm not going to bother giving an example but I'm sure you could think of pleny.

Also, the part in bold highlights the importance of architectural technologists

sydthebeat

galwaytt wrote: »

Far too many design's are drawn in isolation of engineering or execution in mind. When those people who are required to execute get involved (say the SE), and sometimes novel or unique solutions get involved, build costs go up - but it's driven by the requirement to deliver the design...... To me, that implies a basic disconnect in the design process between (say), the clients wishes (or expectations) and that which is practical to delivery (and I don't mean physically - the most common constraint is cost).

galwaytt, lets talk about 'design'.

I believe there is a disconnect in what people consider 'design' what is actually regurgitating of existing solutions. The design process, and im not just talking about architectural artistic design, im talking about technical design as well, is based on 2 parts. Analysis of the problem and synthesis of solutions. Analysis is not the issue here, but the synthesis of the solution is. Synthesis works on a risk / reward basis. Reducing the risk of the synthesis leads generally to prescribed existing solutions, but doesn't "push the envelope" so to speak. Increasing the risk means exploring non standard or non existing solutions to resolve the design issue. The better the designer the further the risk can be pushed to gain the better resolution to the issue.
The clients budget has to be the parameters in which this design process works. However, the client also has to be able to comprehend the difference between the generic solutions and the innovative solution.
I would also argue that this innovative design solution needs to be matched on the other side with a contractor of the same calibre. There have been many cases down through the years where we have asked sub contractor to carry out work which was off standard and when they said "sure, that cant be done" they were told to take a hike and we'd find someone who could do it.

I do agree, to a point, that far to many designs are arrived without proper investigation of engineer solutions. However, in this i would argue that far too often the client is only willing to pay for the "design" and not the "instructions". Like buying an airfix model and trying to build it just by looking at the picture on the lid.
It is only lately that i have seen more and more clients clued in enough to realise that detailed construction drawings are required, and not just teh planning design drawings.

FergusD

sydthebeat wrote: »

I do agree, to a point, that far to many designs are arrived without proper investigation of engineer solutions. However, in this i would argue that far too often the client is only willing to pay for the "design" and not the "instructions". Like buying an airfix model and trying to build it just by looking at the picture on the lid.
It is only lately that i have seen more and more clients clued in enough to realise that detailed construction drawings are required, and not just teh planning design drawings.

How many people get detailed construction drawings and costings done before they get planning? The design is meant to be done to the budget - not the other way around, with the budget being decided by the design and the detailed construction drawings. The architectural professionals should know (and tell their clients!) that certain elements add significantly to the cost (e.g. zinc roof, corner windows, significant open spans internally, large expanses of glazing as a % of wall area, etc. etc.).

I had a design (from an architect who was engaged purely for planning purposes) to a budget, but I don't believe that it was possible to build the design for that budget without majorly compromising the end product. The engineer told me this the first time he saw the plans (recruited after getting planning).

In no way do I regret the architectural input, but I do think that a little more realism on what it would cost to build wouldn't have gone astray. As to my process, I engaged an architect for the design, then an engineer (for structural, sign-off and advice) on the build. I was prepared to (in conjunction with the engineer) work out and detail how I wanted things so I didn't need any further architectural input. I would consider the extra money I spent on the advice aspect of the engineer's service as being very well worth it. For what it's worth, I was doing this on a direct labour basis.

Fergus.

sydthebeat

FergusD wrote: »

How many people get detailed construction drawings and costings done before they get planning?

no one should, i wasnt inferring that at all!!!! not quite sure how you assumed that?

FergusD wrote: »

The design is meant to be done to the budget - not the other way around, with the budget being decided by the design and the detailed construction drawings.

not really, the design and construction spec is supposed to be within the confines of the budget, which is agreed before any pen goes to paper.

FergusD wrote: »

I had a design (from an architect who was engaged purely for planning purposes) to a budget, but I don't believe that it was possible to build the design for that budget without majorly compromising the end product. The engineer told me this the first time he saw the plans (recruited after getting planning).

see my risk / reward and detailed spec points above. Why wasn't the architect given the chance to produce construction drawings and spec to see if tenders came in on budget? He may have been skillful enough to design a lot of cost out of the build. Which is possible. Did he say that he could bring it in on budget?

FergusD wrote: »

In no way do I regret the architectural input, but I do think that a little more realism on what it would cost to build wouldn't have gone astray. As to my process, I engaged an architect for the design, then an engineer (for structural, sign-off and advice) on the build. I was prepared to (in conjunction with the engineer) work out and detail how I wanted things so I didn't need any further architectural input. I would consider the extra money I spent on the advice aspect of the engineer's service as being very well worth it. For what it's worth, I was doing this on a direct labour basis.

Fergus.

You sound confident enough that you and your engineer were able to resolve all the construction issues so you were left with the best "bang for buck". Fair enough, but theres many clients out there who need direction at this stage, and many engineers who may not offer the best aesthetic or technical resolution to an issue. You also sound confident enough to be able to run a construction project yourself, again, theres many who wouldnt have the time, experience or confidence to do this.

But on the flip side, you'll never know what you could have finished up with if you had have had more confidence in your designer.

sydthebeat

FergusD wrote: »

.... The architectural professionals should know (and tell their clients!) that certain elements add significantly to the cost (e.g. zinc roof, corner windows, significant open spans internally, large expanses of glazing as a % of wall area, etc. etc.).
.

Just on this point again....

"Design elements" may "add cost" to a build (when compared to what exactly? BTW... a shoe box?) but it must be understood that they also add much much more.
Well designed dwellings having "design elements" add to the sense of individuality of the dwelling, which in turn adds to the well being of the inhabitants
"Design elements" also add value to the dwelling. In my experience they add many multiples of the 'cost' back in value. For example, i recently designed a curved stair on a curved wall in the entrance hall to a dwelling for a client. The oak stair cost 11k, the approx extra cost in building the wall worked out at approx 1k, and ive been told by a valuer that the entrance hall its self is worth about 50k to the value of the house because of its uniqueness and design.

So perhaps client need to be told not only the cost of the build, but maybe they should get the design plans valued as well..... maybe then they would realise the value (both holistically and financially) of good design !!!

FergusD

sydthebeat wrote: »

no one should, i wasnt inferring that at all!!!! not quite sure how you assumed that?

Simple! I read the following lines

I do agree, to a point, that far to many designs are arrived without proper investigation of engineer solutions. However, in this i would argue that far too often the client is only willing to pay for the "design" and not the "instructions"

sydthebeat wrote: »

not really, the design and construction spec is supposed to be within the confines of the budget, which is agreed before any pen goes to paper.

We're saying the same thing here...

sydthebeat wrote: »

see my risk / reward and detailed spec points above. Why wasn't the architect given the chance to produce construction drawings and spec to see if tenders came in on budget? He may have been skillful enough to design a lot of cost out of the build. Which is possible. Did he say that he could bring it in on budget?

They didn't, but they weren't asked! We agreed a fee upfront solely for planning drawings, there was never any intention of using the full architectural service. They did have the planned budget. It would be difficult to design out costly elements such as a zinc roof or windows post planning methinks

In my mind (and I expect you to disagree) an architect (which I did consider as a career BTW) is closer to artist than engineer (this is the reason I didn't pursue it!). I wanted someone with ideas and flair for the design, but for the build I wanted someone who was firmly grounded in reality and who could provide real-world, practical, solutions to problems. I know that's making a sweeping generalisation and that you get crossover between the artistic and practical, but architects are trained in a way which is very different from engineers.

All I can say is that I'm happy with my choices and the resulting house.

Fergus.

FergusD

sydthebeat wrote: »

Just on this point again....

"Design elements" may "add cost" to a build (when compared to what exactly? BTW... a shoe box?) but it must be understood that they also add much much more.
Well designed dwellings having "design elements" add to the sense of individuality of the dwelling, which in turn adds to the well being of the inhabitants

I couldn't agree more!! My only point was that the added cost of these design elements need to be clear up front. If an architect is given a budget figure, they shouldn't overshoot by miles without a discussion with the client about the pros/cons of the choices being made and the value they add.

Fergus.

sydthebeat

FergusD wrote: »

I couldn't agree more!! My only point was that the added cost of these design elements need to be clear up front. If an architect is given a budget figure, they shouldn't overshoot by miles without a discussion with the client about the pros/cons of the choices being made and the value they add.

Fergus.

but if you never went to tender with the design, how do you know it would be miles over budget?

Im not really referring to your particular situation per say, im just making the general point that a good designer can make much more from a clients budget than a bad designer.

FergusD

sydthebeat wrote: »

but if you never went to tender with the design, how do you know it would be miles over budget?

I did get quotes from builders, I did go through all my cost elements and all my choices, I have built the house, I know what it cost. I know that the glazing % for instance forced us into windows with a very low u-value to meet building regs. This pushed our glazing cost up substantially. This isn't something I regret, but it is something that I should have been made aware of at design stage. It was identified as part of the work post planning, but would have been difficult to change then without compromising the house.

sydthebeat wrote: »

Im not really referring to your particular situation per say, im just making the general point that a good designer can make much more from a clients budget than a bad designer.

I agree up to a point, but in my opinion architect's training tends to concentrate too much on design and maybe less so on the practical side. Your ideal "designer" needs to do both.

Fergus.

Slig

Just to clarify something that seems to be coming up.

Architecture and Engineering are two different subjects. Engineers are trained specifically to ensure a building stands up and they are one of the most valuable members of a design team. Any expertise they have in design, waterproofing or insulation is only gained by further research, experience or natural aptitude.

An Engineer is not the right person to take a design and build it.

Put simply, A successful design team will have the Architect as the top dog (acting on the clients behalf to a level that the client is happy with) The whole project should be overseen by the Architect delegating issues to the appropriate professional. Structural matters should be handled by an appropriate engineer, waterproofing, air tightness and insulation should be handled by an Architectural Technician. Services such as electrics and plumbing should be designed by a services engineer etc. Obviously there are areas where these fields overlap and the Architect will find a solution by using the full team in consulatation.

The problem with this approach is that it becomes very expensive for the client as they will incur fees from all the respective professionals and really isnt an option on a one off house. Because of this most people will go for one professional, architect, engineer or Arch tech to handle the full project or maybe arch or arch tech for design and engineer for construction.

An Engineer will not design a house for you. They will design a house for themselves, one that is easy to build with the least possible problems. This might sound like a harmless enough prospect but at best it will be a box with stuck on generic features and at worst a poorly positioned, poorly lit, drafty cold box. It may sound like a generalisation but I have been working for and with Engineers all my professional career and their qualification is completely worng for design.

That said, an Architect will probably not have sufficent on-site experience (or time) to carry a build at a project manager level and if they do will probably charge excessively for the role.

sydthebeat

FergusD wrote: »

Simple! I read the following lines

I do agree, to a point, that far to many designs are arrived without proper investigation of engineer solutions. However, in this i would argue that far too often the client is only willing to pay for the "design" and not the "instructions"
.

just to be clear, i am in no way saying above that clients need to get design and construction drawings carried out before planning.
All you need before planning is design drawings. If the designer is in any way worth their salt, they will be able to give an approximate costing of the build from their design. If they cant, then i would question their experience.

FergusD

Slig wrote: »

An Engineer is not the right person to take a design and build it.

...

The problem with this approach is that it becomes very expensive for the client as they will incur fees from all the respective professionals and really isnt an option on a one off house. Because of this most people will go for one professional, architect, engineer or Arch tech to handle the full project or maybe arch or arch tech for design and engineer for construction.

...

That said, an Architect will probably not have sufficent on-site experience (or time) to carry a build at a project manager level and if they do will probably charge excessively for the role.

And the important question given the comments above... if you were advising someone who was in my position, i.e. not involved in the construction business and looking to build their one-off house to a budget...

Who would you recommend they employ and for what parts? What do you think is a reasonable compromise for the normal self-build?

Thanks,

Fergus.

Slig

Architect or Architectural Technician initially would be my choice with an Engineer on-site working in conjunction with the arch/arch tech as the building goes up.

but, what I would like to point out is that no matter what ONE profession you choose they will still only have a limited knowledge of any other professionals field. Eg. An Architect will have a rough idea of the size of a steel beam required for a particular span and will overspec where as an engineer would be able to calculate the exact size required potentially saving the client money.

I dont mean to sound harsh towards Engineers but poor building design and the bungalow bliss effect along with absolutely unforgivably incompitent planning personnel have led to so much of the hardship this country is in right now.

FergusD

Slig wrote: »

I dont mean to sound harsh towards Engineers but poor building design and the bungalow bliss effect along with absolutely unforgivably incompitent planning personnel have led to so much of the hardship this country is in right now.

We're straying waaaayyyyyy off topic here, but I think building design and bungalow bliss are the least of our worries. Poor planning personnel may be slightly more to blame, but lack of financial regulation, lack of proper advice (mainly economic) to our politicians, lack of ability to understand and act on the advice they did get and a desire by all concerned to believe that the party could continue forever were far more relevant reasons as to where we are now.

Fergus.