nav[aria-label="Primary Navigation"] { padding: 0; & ul { list-style: none; width: 100%; display: flex; flex-direction: row; justify-content: start; align-items: start; gap: 30px; padding: 0; & li { margin: 0; } & ul li { list-style: none; } } }

Child Item

Architect Stages

clouddy

I'm in the early stages of planning permission and I'm using an architect, whose work I've seen and can appreciate, in order to get a new design approved for planning.

In terms of cost-saving, is it wise to dismiss your architect after planning, and proceed with the detailed-design stage with an engineer?

I really want a greatly-designed house, and I'm willing to pay for this design. But I'm just wondering if I will be losing any of the architects 'vision' or creative touches, if I choose to use an Engineer to do the detailed design.

Any help appreciated.

Find more posts tagged with

engineer architect

architect plans design

Quick Links

Comments

BoardsMember

When people have used an architect throughout have you also used a QS?

I'm planning using the architect throughout, delighted with him, he's great. But I remember people singing the praises for having a QS for the duration of the build. We got a QS to do a budget costing if plans, just to ensure it's worth going for planning. I'll probably ask the architect his view, but would welcome other input.

dellas1979

Youve probably made a decision on this already.

Myself, as a person with no general idea of building before starting this (am building a non-standard looking house), I decided to keep the architect onboard for my build.

Yep-its a whack in the pocket, but I have peace of mind, namely:

- He does all the paper work for me
- He controls the stage requisitions/what is requisitioned from bank.
- He controls all the certs from the engineer/builder (builder uses their own engineer)
- Organised the BER assessment
- He negotiated (with me) the contract with the builder
- After the detailed design drawings and tenders, there were a few changes to the roof (its an unusual roof). He redrew/consulted with the builder.
- I bounce ideas off him, namely color of windows (again an unusual colour)
- I've had a few issues with the builders and dampness in the house (its a timber frame and was weather tighted rather late last year/early in the year) and archi kept on top of the builder/wouldnt pay him until it was sorted.
- The builders have commented multiple times, he runs a very tight ship.
- Listens to me generally/gives me some pep talks when I think I've lost my mind/frustrated with the builders.
- Comes up with plans how to tackle things. You will be very lucky if you have no issues/queries after the detailed design drawings. You will need someone involved who has the design at the forefront. Sometimes builders will come up with solutions that are quick/cheaper to solve, but mightnt be best long term.

TheBoyConor

Why not have the Architect manage the detailed design too and let them them get a subconsultant engineer to carry out the engineering design and specification.

Chopping and changing the lead designer is a recipe for misunderstandings and screw ups. One area in particular where it would be a clusterfook is in relation to PSDP. Will the architect stay on as PSDP or will the engineer do it? If the latter, then they might not agree with certain design choices of the architect and want to change it for H&S reasons.

I'd keep the architect OP, and have them subconsult for any engineering design work needed. That way they will be working together on producing a design that both professionals are happy with.

Sure, you might save a few grand if you dismiss the architect. But do you want to take on the risk of things going awry or conflict arising because you wanted to save a few sheckles?

dusteeroads

clouddy wrote: »

I believe this is something an engineer should be very capable of doing. If anything, the work is more 'engineering-related' isn't it?

The architect will have a vision that is comprised not only of the spatial design but selections of materials and products.

A follow on engineer may or may not get or share the architects vision and may - for apparently good reasons - dilute or move way from the vision. "why are we doing that- why don't we this" can be volunteered by all and sundry to diminish the design.

Materials and products can become discontinued , delayed or prove expensive when sought and alternatives may need to be considered ( value engineered). You really need a good architect for that.

These are the risks when starting out with a good architectural design but not following through.

Mellor

clouddy wrote: »

Thanks Mellor, appreciate the feedback.

So in summary, I guess the key point is that there are many more Design elements to consider, even post the planning stage after a design is complete, and on this basis having the architect would be advantageous.

In a nutshell, that's it.
Ideally the "architect" would be an architectural firm that empolys architects and technologists and other professionals.

BryanF

Who is preparing the 1:5 construction details? Detailing air-tightness and insulation continuity ..

clouddy

Thanks Mellor, appreciate the feedback.

So in summary, I guess the key point is that there are many more Design elements to consider, even post the planning stage after a design is complete, and on this basis having the architect would be advantageous.

Mellor

clouddy wrote: »

What difference services do you mean?

Engineers and architects provides different services. They have different training and education.
If the same way that a plumber and electrician provide different services.

The only two that provide similar services would be an architect and an architectural technologist.

Stage 2 or the detailed design stage would involve just that, developing the design to include materials and more technicalities etc.

I understand what detailed design is. I'm pointing out if you cut off the architect at planning, you'll be lacking any design input for later stages.

I believe this is something an engineer should be very capable of doing. If anything, the work is more 'engineering-related' isn't it?

I don't see how it's engineering related at all tbh.
What field of engineering are we actually talking? Because all sorts have a crack at it due to engineering bodies having solid legal standing. But few are actually trained in construction, and less in design.

Anyone can replicate traditional Irish from a plan book. And if an out of touch council insist traditional designs, engineers get away with copy and pasting. But if you actually want a building individually designed, that's architectural not engineering.

Again, I might be mistaken or ignorant on this, but wouldn't both the architect and engineer provide the same service - build on the original design to incorporate materials/finishings/electricals etc.

They'll both produce the same documents. The difference is the content.

I guess I'm just wondering what most people do in this situation who have an architect but are cost-conscious. Is it the standard thing to get an engineer involved once you're happy with the design from your architect, as opposed to keeping the architect to manage everything to turn-key?

Look at it this way. The architects hourly rate is no higher than the engineers hourly rate. If the enginners fee is 50% lower. It's because he's spending 50% less time and effort on it.

clouddy

Mellor wrote: »

In terms of cost saving, yes you would probably save money. But for good reason. They provide different services.

What difference services do you mean?
Stage 2 or the detailed design stage would involve just that, developing the design to include materials and more technicalities etc.

I believe this is something an engineer should be very capable of doing. If anything, the work is more 'engineering-related' isn't it?

Mellor wrote: »

You'd be lacking finished, fittings, joinery.
And depending on the design, you might be missing specialist details

Again, I might be mistaken or ignorant on this, but wouldn't both the architect and engineer provide the same service - build on the original design to incorporate materials/finishings/electricals etc.

I guess I'm just wondering what most people do in this situation who have an architect but are cost-conscious. Is it the standard thing to get an engineer involved once you're happy with the design from your architect, as opposed to keeping the architect to manage everything to turn-key?

Mellor

clouddy wrote: »

In terms of cost-saving, is it wise to dismiss your architect after planning, and proceed with the detailed-design stage with an engineer?

In terms of cost saving, yes you would probably save money. But for good reason. They provide different services.

If want want use an architect to planning only. Then contract one to planning only. Contracting one for a full service and dismissing him is unnecessarily messy imo.

I really want a greatly-designed house, and I'm willing to pay for this design. But I'm just wondering if I will be losing any of the architects 'vision' or creative touches, if I choose to use an Engineer to do the detailed design.

You'd be lacking finished, fittings, joinery.
And depending on the design, you might be missing specialist details
.

cameramonkey

dusteeroads wrote: »

Most likely you will loose the essence of the design if you don't retain the architect. Contractors , sub contractors , product vendors , in - laws all will conspire to dilute or even destroy the design. Almost guaranteed.

i think this could be very good advice but in some cases also add in the Architect.

I person needs to understand what about the proposed building will make it special and they then need to stick to their guns, with a very good architect working for you this can be achieved unfortunately not all architect are very good.

dusteeroads

Most likely you will loose the essence of the design if you don't retain the architect. Contractors , sub contractors , product vendors , in - laws all will conspire to dilute or even destroy the design. Almost guaranteed.