Plan, Design and Build company as an option v architect design

spitonmedickie

Hi folks, don't think I can name them but got a brochure recently for the 12 or so designs of a Cork plan, design and build company. There's some designs in there I could live with, not set the world on fire, but ok. I always thought if I was self building I would do it 'properly', not go for a cookie cutter bungalow bliss (blitz) approach but tbh it's growing on me.

Meeting another architect next week to discuss the project but even finding them has been slow and since I don't have an 'ideal' in mind, while hopefully they'd design something locally sympathetic outside that addresses the aspect of the site better than a 'cookie cutter' design, interior wise I'm not sure it'd be anything better.

2 friends are building architect designed gaffs atm, both are monstrosities imho and the process has been very slow from contracts and procurement to overspends to just getting it up.

So, if a company can absorb some of that stress and leg work (and between planning and build have it done and dusted in 18 months) should I look more closely? Has anyone taken such an approach and welcomes/regrets it?

Graham

I think the biggest problem with the cookie cutter approach is you end up with a property that pays little to no consideration to your wants/needs or the site and its strengths/weaknesses.

If you're going to be spending 6 figures on something built specifically for you do you really want to skimp on the extra few percent it's going to cost to have something designed to suit you and your site properly?

spitonmedickie

True, but I guess a consideration is this crowd (in principle without upgrading specs) could deliver a house for maybe 100k less than a rough figure an architect gave us! Site would be the thing I guess, I don't really know what my needs are except for number of rooms and they are possible in the template plans. Being blunt, the site isn't that exceptional unfortunately. If the present site (on our farm) wasn't a runner there's another more visually sensitive site but traditional site (kinda could be seen as replacing a farm house) that I know I wouldn't cookie cut on. Maybe it is more like a few percent not 100k

sydthebeat

What's the contract if you decided not to go with them to build after the planning process?

Have they quoted you full construction costs to comply with NZEB regulations?

What fees are they charging you to make changes to their plans?

Saving 100k doesn't at all sound realistic over the course of a house build... Someone is either over guessing construction cost or, even more worryingly, under guessing.

Graham

sydthebeat wrote: »

Saving 100k doesn't at all sound realistic over the course of a house build.

This!

Make sure you're comparing like-with-like.

Comparing a cookie-cutter bungalow with a 4 bed glass & polished concrete palace isn't a realistic comparison for example.

An architect designed home doesn't have to mean you end up looking like the closing party on an episode of room to improve.

spitonmedickie

Lots of food for thought there but on the face of it it's a A2/NZEB, builders finish c.2400 sq ft 5 bed for €246,000. Would need to upgrade stairs, interior doors, maybe bathrooms and I think you pay through the nose if you change their plans or spec. haven't met them on it but wanted to see if I'm satisfied with the idea but I looked to go further. Meeting another architect next week and he's pretty blunt and practical so will have a better idea then of what I could afford within my budget/mortgage envelope!

Penn

spitonmedickie wrote: »

True, but I guess a consideration is this crowd (in principle without upgrading specs) could deliver a house for maybe 100k less than a rough figure an architect gave us! Site would be the thing I guess, I don't really know what my needs are except for number of rooms and they are possible in the template plans. Being blunt, the site isn't that exceptional unfortunately. If the present site (on our farm) wasn't a runner there's another more visually sensitive site but traditional site (kinda could be seen as replacing a farm house) that I know I wouldn't cookie cut on. Maybe it is more like a few percent not 100k

Who will oversee the work on your behalf to make sure the builder is doing it right?
Who will be the arbiter of whether any variations (and therefore extra costs) are justified?

These are important questions and are part of the important role of an external architect/engineer/surveyor. Their role outside of design shouldn't be underestimated. Even if you go with design & build, you should consider hiring someone to protect your interests in overseeing the works and contract items.

Calahonda52

spitonmedickie wrote: »

... to just getting it up.

...

Always a concern , especially with that user name
.
Anyway, to add to the questions posed above,
is foundation design and all other works included, including site suitability for sewage if you are not going to an existing system?
As noted above site orientation/room location is critical.
Will they include the brise soleil math if needed?
What about SUDs math if needed?

spitonmedickie

Calahonda52 wrote: »

Always a concern , especially with that user name

Ooo matron. Should have edited that in the proof!

Pretty much all of those are included. Site had OPP (now expired) so the principle or percolation shouldn't be an issue.That address SUDs too - don't think there's anything in development plan too prescribed? And zero idea about shading but I'd imagine not. Definitely a risk that it'll be a design that meets the regs but isn't necessary good for long term thermal comfort.