benefits of having an archetict

hanafine

Looking at archeticts at the moment for a one of house. Their fees seems very high...just wondering if anyone can tell me the benefits of having an archetict I. E. Are the worth it.

Many thanks

SoupyNorman

Had the very same question myself a year ago for a sizable extension and interior remodel we were planning. Almost a year on and our build started 2 weeks ago (exciting)!

All I can say is, going with an Architect was the best decision we could have made. The architect we went with came out to the house and gave us a free consultation, told us what we could /should do.

The benefits so far have been:

• The Design. They design extensions/new homes in their sleep so they know what works, how to maximise light etc
• Tendering. They recommended 5-6 builders that all quoted a price and they setup for us to see builders previous works etc, Also an architect would rarely recommend a builder they did not know and trust.
• Cost control. Helped us understand the end to end costs that we’d be likely to encounter and if quotes received were value for money.
• Site visits. Their engineer will call out every 2 weeks to check the builders progress and ensure the building is as it is on the spec.
• Confidence. It’s our first time doing something like this, the fact we have the architects to call if we’re worried about anything is and has been great.
• Planning (we did not require planning but it’s an obvious benefit)


So, I say yes to an architect but it depends on their fee. A few years ago when living in a smaller house an architect I got out of the phonebook quoted me €15k for the design and planning permission of a small extension and attic conversion, the build I have on now is a 40 sq m extension/shed and few other bits and the fee is about €4k all in all. For a house you’d probably be expecting a fee of €10k maybe?

Gumbo

hanafine wrote: »

Looking at archeticts at the moment for a one of house. Their fees seems very high...just wondering if anyone can tell me the benefits of having an archetict I. E. Are the worth it.

Many thanks

Who will design the house if you do not use an Architect?

Effects

The timing belt snapped on my car during the summer. Needed a whole engine rebuild. Mechanics are expensive.

I didn't attempt to to do it myself.

fits

I have been in so many houses sited in wrong place, oriented wrong way, dark. And the space isnt well designed and half not used. Get the architect!

mrsWhippy

Definitely get an architect. But do your research and ensure the architect is familiar with local planning regulations, and has a portfolio with similar designs to what you'd prefer, contemporary versus traditional etc. Contact previous clients and chat to them about their experiences.

There is nothing more depressing than a crappy, carbon copy bungalow thrown on a beautiful plot with small windows and long dark corridors - such a waste! Invest now to ensure your future home makes the most of the plot, the aspect and is built to your requirements. An experienced architect should also be able to advice on airtight building and efficient, properly designed heating systems too, which is so important to get right in a new build.

mrsWhippy

Definitely get an architect. But do your research and ensure the architect is familiar with local planning regulations, and has a portfolio with similar designs to what you'd prefer, contemporary versus traditional etc. Contact previous clients and chat to them about their experiences.

There is nothing more depressing than a crappy, carbon copy bungalow thrown on a beautiful plot with small windows and long dark corridors - such a waste! Invest now to ensure your future home makes the most of the plot, the aspect and is built to your requirements. An experienced architect should also be able to advice on airtight building and efficient, properly designed heating systems too, which is so important to get right in a new build.

Markcheese

Maybe swimming against the grain a bit here... but a friend has a simple system built bungalow (about 7 years old now) - its a brilliant design, excellent use of light and space...
Most of the above comments could ( and probably would anyway) be done by an engineer....
That said if you get an architect that gives you what you want at decent value for money ,then brilliant..

cpoh1

Effects wrote: »

The timing belt snapped on my car during the summer. Needed a whole engine rebuild. Mechanics are expensive.

I didn't attempt to to do it myself.

Its not just architects that design houses too, engineers do also, some good some terrible!

By the same token I have seen some terrible jobs from architects too.

My advice - get a good architect, recommended by someone and have first hand experience of their work to draft plans for you. Depending on the build either use the archtect or an engineer to supervise the build and costs.

ht9zni1gs28crp

You wont be on here daily asking how to build certain details with the right Architect on board!

ezdmanx

Ok, first of all I’m an Architect. Architects seem expensive to hire but the reality is we're not when you look at the benefits.

I'm assuming by looking for an Architect you mean for an RIAI Architect to offer standard RIAI design service so the Architect would put together a brief, design the house, get planning, arrange a competitive tender, negotiate with builder, oversee the contract and construction, provide certificates at the end etc. etc.

And I assume your alternative to not using an Architect is to go route B, to get an engineer/technician to put together a layout, you lodge planning, get a few builders quotes, and hire one of them to build the house. And you opt out of the statutory certs for the building regulations.

As money seems to be an important factor for you in deciding whether to hire an architect or not. I’m not going to talk about the enhanced experience of living in an architect designed house tailored for your every needs and just concentrate on the money issue. The majority of houses built in Ireland were built with no Architects involvement and people get by in them just fine not knowing what the alternative could have been.

In my opinion an Architects service usually either pays for itself or comes close in terms of the savings you make. That is:

1. your time saved during the whole process
2. savings in the construction cost of the house
3. savings in the cost of the process - planning, tender, things that can and will go wrong during construction or long after the house has been built
4. The built house being a more valuable property with higher sale value because it is better designed and can have the cool factor
5. The running costs of the house being cheaper over its lifetime

To elaborate:

Your time saved

• The Architect organises almost everything. A self-built house will take over your life and the route B approach means you will deal with a mountain of work such as researching builders, comparing builders quotes, negotiating with the builder, making design and specification decisions - all on your own and involving a lot of research if you have no experience in the process

Construction cost savings

• The Architect will be aware of the best quality/price products
• They will capitalise on construction cost savings overall
• They will maximise the usable area of the house, there will be less wasted area helping reduce the house area (ie costs) overall
• They will maximise the site potential. You may not need as much site area or landscaping, reducing costs

Savings during the process

• Increased likelihood of getting planning with an Architect, further information requests and appeals to bord pleanala less likely, no going down the wrong route which can all lead to costs
• You get the construction experience of an Architect, things are less likely to go wrong which invariably leads to cost increases.
• They will control the budget
• An Architect will oversee an RIAI contract between you and the builder making it less likely you will run into construction problems i.e. cost/time overruns and arguments with the builder
• The builder will be less likely to chance anything costly with an experienced architect.
• As an Architect will have overseen the construction you can be sure the house was built properly, less likelihood of leaks, repairs, remedial works in the distant future.

More valuable house

• A well designed house with optimum site orientation and layout will simply be more valuable.
• An Architect designed house will have the cool factor, it might even win awards and as a result be more valuable.

Reduced running costs over house lifetime

• A good Architect will have knowledge of sustainable design and know how to reduce the house energy consumption with consequent monetary savings over the houses lifetime
• Architects are knowledgeable of the life-cycle costs of products. It may make more sense to pay a little more now than have to replace/repaint it every 10 years etc.

Architects fees came down a lot during the recession and have not really recovered yet so it's a good time to get one.

Gumbo

^^^^Good honest post.

cpoh1

ezdmanx wrote: »

Ok, first of all I’m an Architect. Architects seem expensive to hire but the reality is we're not when you look at the benefits.

I'm assuming by looking for an Architect you mean for an RIAI Architect to offer standard RIAI design service so the Architect would put together a brief, design the house, get planning, arrange a competitive tender, negotiate with builder, oversee the contract and construction, provide certificates at the end etc. etc.

And I assume your alternative to not using an Architect is to go route B, to get an engineer/technician to put together a layout, you lodge planning, get a few builders quotes, and hire one of them to build the house. And you opt out of the statutory certs for the building regulations.

As money seems to be an important factor for you in deciding whether to hire an architect or not. I’m not going to talk about the enhanced experience of living in an architect designed house tailored for your every needs and just concentrate on the money issue. The majority of houses built in Ireland were built with no Architects involvement and people get by in them just fine not knowing what the alternative could have been.

In my opinion an Architects service usually either pays for itself or comes close in terms of the savings you make. That is:

1. your time saved during the whole process
2. savings in the construction cost of the house
3. savings in the cost of the process - planning, tender, things that can and will go wrong during construction or long after the house has been built
4. The built house being a more valuable property with higher sale value because it is better designed and can have the cool factor
5. The running costs of the house being cheaper over its lifetime

To elaborate:

Your time saved

• The Architect organises almost everything. A self-built house will take over your life and the route B approach means you will deal with a mountain of work such as researching builders, comparing builders quotes, negotiating with the builder, making design and specification decisions - all on your own and involving a lot of research if you have no experience in the process

Construction cost savings

• The Architect will be aware of the best quality/price products
• They will capitalise on construction cost savings overall
• They will maximise the usable area of the house, there will be less wasted area helping reduce the house area (ie costs) overall
• They will maximise the site potential. You may not need as much site area or landscaping, reducing costs

Savings during the process

• Increased likelihood of getting planning with an Architect, further information requests and appeals to bord pleanala less likely, no going down the wrong route which can all lead to costs
• You get the construction experience of an Architect, things are less likely to go wrong which invariably leads to cost increases.
• They will control the budget
• An Architect will oversee an RIAI contract between you and the builder making it less likely you will run into construction problems i.e. cost/time overruns and arguments with the builder
• The builder will be less likely to chance anything costly with an experienced architect.
• As an Architect will have overseen the construction you can be sure the house was built properly, less likelihood of leaks, repairs, remedial works in the distant future.

More valuable house

• A well designed house with optimum site orientation and layout will simply be more valuable.
• An Architect designed house will have the cool factor, it might even win awards and as a result be more valuable.

Reduced running costs over house lifetime

• A good Architect will have knowledge of sustainable design and know how to reduce the house energy consumption with consequent monetary savings over the houses lifetime
• Architects are knowledgeable of the life-cycle costs of products. It may make more sense to pay a little more now than have to replace/repaint it every 10 years etc.

Architects fees came down a lot during the recession and have not really recovered yet so it's a good time to get one.

Excellent post but I would add - all the above can be carried out equally effectively by an Engineer.

lownhard

Not getting an architect would be the biggest false economy you will ever succumb to. They can add so much value if they are good at their job.

Often by looking at house from the outside you just know whether an architect has been involved or not.

Don't be part of the "sure-we-know-what-we-want" brigade who get a local engineer to "design" a dormer bungalow that is identical to the neighbour's house with "the sunroom" slapped on the other side because they can park the car beside the double doors to make it easier to bring in the shopping.

Good architects design multi functional spaces that ultimately save you money. No "good room" or dining room that is used twice a year.

Meet a few of them, have in depth discussions, and then decide who best can add the most value to your project.

ht9zni1gs28crp

Carefull lownhard, you may upset the psyche around here with talk of no 'good rooms'

damn that modernism and all that!

ht9zni1gs28crp

Carefull lownhard, you may upset the psyche around here with talk of no 'good rooms'

damn that modernism and all that!

kieran.

lownhard wrote: »

if they are good at their job.

This is the key satisfy yourself to the above and it doesn't if there 'TITLE' is Architect/Engineer or the Parish Priest.

Dudda

cpoh1 wrote: »

Excellent post but I would add - all the above can be carried out equally effectively by an Engineer.

Can, but very rarely ever is. That's the risk you run when you don't hire an architect.

cpoh1

Dudda wrote: »

Can, but very rarely ever is. That's the risk you run when you don't hire an architect.

I disagree completely with this. The strengths of an architect, ideas, spatial awareness and concept designs do not lend well to project managing a build - costs, schedule etc. especially in bigger jobs. The opposite is the case with engineers who may not have the "outside the box" ideas an architect may have but tend to be more practical on the floor contruction managers.

Personally for my renovations I hired an architect to get the ideas and initial layout drawings and have an engineer closing out the work, he also certified all the tructural stuff we were doing, something an architect would have had to have shopped out anyway. This is how it works in all large commercial jobs ive been involved in over the years in the industry and is a better template for house builds and large/complex extensions.

Just my opinion - architects as a one stop shop is not always a robust solution!

Dudda

cpoh1 wrote: »

I disagree completely with this. The strengths of an architect, ideas, spatial awareness and concept designs do not lend well to project managing a build - costs, schedule etc. especially in bigger jobs. The opposite is the case with engineers who may not have the "outside the box" ideas an architect may have but tend to be more practical on the floor contruction managers.

Personally for my renovations I hired an architect to get the ideas and initial layout drawings and have an engineer closing out the work, he also certified all the tructural stuff we were doing, something an architect would have had to have shopped out anyway. This is how it works in all large commercial jobs ive been involved in over the years in the industry and is a better template for house builds and large/complex extensions.

Just my opinion - architects as a one stop shop is not always a robust solution!

I've the opposite experience. First on larger projects as you mentioned you generally have a design team including structural engineer, M&E, QS and even fire, planning and conservation consultants depending on the project so requiring the structural engineer to sign off isn't always an issue. The one stop shop solution doesn't apply.

On larger projects when problems arise that can have considerable impacts on cost you need an architect to think of creative ways to resolve situations or to know what to prioritise. On a recent multi million euro project I was involved in the engineers solution to a steelwork problem would have worked but it working it not enough. The exposed steel detail needed a 'thinking outside the box' to refine the exposed details. A famous architecture quote is "the devil is in the detail".Its this attention to aesthetic detail you need during construction that engineers (not all but most) don't have.
An architect is better on making calls managing costs for example reducing the spec of a floor in a store or toilets to ensure the client gets the impact on the entrance floor. I don't think engineers are as good or passionate about these details that matter to architects, clients and end users. The engineers 'it works' attitude can be easier for the builder, often quicker and possibly quicker but that doesn't mean its the best. It may not have the same level or attention to detail and visual result.

Angry bird

As a planner I would always recommend to hire a good architect. Their expertise is far more than the aesthetics of the exterior. Personally I think it's their expertise in getting the most out of the interior to your budget that's most valuable. Typically they will also rely on a quantity surveyor and an engineer for their needed input. Talk to a few of them to try and agree on what you want and pick the one that best meets your needs and budget.

hanafine

Thanks for the replies. Very helpful. Seems from what most of you are saying an archetict is a must esp if u are looking for the most out if the interior layout etc. Think j just made up my mind :-)

BoardsMember

I'm surprised a QS wasn't brp4ught into the discussion earlier. We'll be doing a significant extension soon and will definitely have the QS in at the earlieat opportunity.

All things being equal, I think most people would prefer to include an architect as part of their team. One reason oft stated for not using one is cost saving, whether perceived or real. On that note, one thing I can never get my head around is the norm of basing the fee as a percentage of the build costs. This makes no sense to me. If I decide to apend 30k rather than 3k on a kitchen, why should the architect earn and additonal 2.7k on their fee. I cant see how this is justifiable. Same as solicitors charging a % for professional fees that are not related to the effort required.

feckthisgenie

SoupyNorman wrote: »

Had the very same question myself a year ago for a sizable extension and interior remodel we were planning. Almost a year on and our build started 2 weeks ago (exciting)!

All I can say is, going with an Architect was the best decision we could have made. The architect we went with came out to the house and gave us a free consultation, told us what we could /should do.

The benefits so far have been:

• The Design. They design extensions/new homes in their sleep so they know what works, how to maximise light etc
• Tendering. They recommended 5-6 builders that all quoted a price and they setup for us to see builders previous works etc, Also an architect would rarely recommend a builder they did not know and trust.
• Cost control. Helped us understand the end to end costs that we’d be likely to encounter and if quotes received were value for money.
• Site visits. Their engineer will call out every 2 weeks to check the builders progress and ensure the building is as it is on the spec.
• Confidence. It’s our first time doing something like this, the fact we have the architects to call if we’re worried about anything is and has been great.
• Planning (we did not require planning but it’s an obvious benefit)


So, I say yes to an architect but it depends on their fee. A few years ago when living in a smaller house an architect I got out of the phonebook quoted me €15k for the design and planning permission of a small extension and attic conversion, the build I have on now is a 40 sq m extension/shed and few other bits and the fee is about €4k all in all. For a house you’d probably be expecting a fee of €10k maybe?

Do you mind me asking what architect you went with, maybe pm me

day dreamer

We recently got PP for one off house. Used an architect for the planning process and the service was excellent.

We met again with architect shortly after PP granted as we had planned to use same firm for plans, tenders, certification, design etc. Were quoted about 6k for construction drawings this would take a few months, about 7K for full certification with building regs not including costs of engineers, BER rating and other services. Also add on VAT to all this

Really liked the architect but feel the fees are way too high. We have the plans we wanted, an engineers have quoted do the above for about 10-11K. I know the "devil is in the detail" but we have a good idea of the finish and style we want. Just wondering can the costs be justified, is it really going to give us that much better a finish because there are a lot of things I could use the money for?

Thanks

kkelliher

BoardsMember wrote: »

I'm surprised a QS wasn't brp4ught into the discussion earlier. We'll be doing a significant extension soon and will definitely have the QS in at the earlieat opportunity.

I was going to but was biting my tongue