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

Not so much the cost of an architect but the % they charge that bowled me over!

spida

We want to get some work done on our house. With building costs being high end of last year we thought we'd look at getting designs etc. and then maybe put it on hold if things were still bad.

After checking the work of a few Architect in the area (looking at Planning Permission submissions) we found one we liked and he called-over to chat. We had a meeting, told him our budget, he took photographs and some weeks later came back to show us his initial sketches.

We thought they were great. But costs still being very high we put the whole thing on ice.

We received a bill from him for 25% of 15% of our budget. On the day, I had plucked the figure 130k 'nearly' from thin air and so our bill was €5,996.25. I checked the contract that we had been sent when we initially enquired and it was exactly as stated there. We were not ripped-off, it was my own fault for not doing my homework.

Looking at other questions here though, this does not seem to be what architects are charging? Or am I wrong?

Architect Fees.png

Find more posts tagged with

fees

charge

architect

Quick Links

Comments

swai

I've talked to a few architects and they were between 8% and 10% plus Vat.

i don't know how they are charging you already for drawings. I spoke to some who would do the drawings for a set fee, then if you go ahead to next stages then it's a percentage of the build etc.

SodiumCooled

Wow that pricing is crazy, 8 to 10% plus VAT and 15% in the case of the first post! We were charged a flat fee for planning and a flat fee for the build stage - nothing to do with the budget for the build. If I calculate what our architect will cost vs. our expected build cost it's about 2% including VAT.

[Deleted User]

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/2058259762/not-so-much-the-cost-of-an-architect-but-the-they-charge-that-bowled-me-over

So 3.75% (15% of 25)?

Doolittle51

How much work has he actually done on this? Sounds like he's looking for €6K to cover the cost of a a couple of meetings and 'Initial sketches'? Or did he put a lot of work into the design?

[Deleted User]

Was there no discussion or agreement up front between ye about fees?

houseyhouse

Our architect charges 7% of the expected build cost plus VAT. But that’s calculated on the build cost before VAT. So if construction was estimated at 100k plus VAT, that would be an actual budget of 113.5k for building and an architect fee of 7k plus VAT or around 8.6k.

In our case 25% of the total fee is for the initial design stage, which included measuring the house and garden, drawing up a couple of sets of 2d plans, various meetings to discuss the plans, revising the plans and presenting 3d images of the preferred options. I think this is very standard and our architect was using a standard RIAI contract.

15% of the build cost seems very high but then our budget is a good bit higher than yours so that might translate to a lower percentage fee?

spida

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/119506314#Comment_119506314

So, it is hard to say how much "work" he put into it, but basically, from one 3-hour meeting and photographing the house with his mobile, he came back to us after a few weeks with 6 drawings (sketches): 1 x ground floor proposal, 1 x first, 1x attic and three views from outside the house showing combinations of the first 3 given different parts chosen (e.g. we do the attic but not the ground floor).

I'm hearing from the above comments (and apologies for not getting back sooner!) that it was over-priced.

spida

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/119508911#Comment_119508911

Regretfully, no. The only time fees were discussed was in the emails prior to the architect's visit to our house. Fees were not mentioned from then on. My mistake.

spida

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/119505708#Comment_119505708

Yes, 3.75% - 25% of the 15% (plus VAT) of the total budged for the build was spent on initial drawings.

[Deleted User]

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/119527448#Comment_119527448

Seems reasonable for a professional service, less than 4%.

Vestiapx

Read the post again, it is for the initial discussion. There are also fees during the build.

spida

Hi @downtheroad,

As @vestiapx says, this is the first of four payments during the project, which together amount to 15% of the budget. This being before VAT is added.

If you see my image attached to the original post, I have a full breakdown in there.

[Deleted User]

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/119528522#Comment_119528522

Apologies I didn't realise you meant the cost was 15%, and you had to pay in 4 installments of 25% each. I thought the net charge was 3.75% and was wondering why you described it as 25% of 15%.

sydthebeat

Absolutely crazy.

No way am initial meeting and a conversation starting sketch design should cost 6000 euros.

This isn't Frank Lloyd Wright you're dealing with

Mellor

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/119505684#Comment_119505684

For 2%, I'd be confident that you didn't have a architect produce a bespoke one-off house and offer the full scope. Most likely a engineer-architects getting planning for a set of plans, and sign off at stages. That perfectly fine if that's what you wanted, but they are very different services and not really fair to compare imo.

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/119511526#Comment_119511526

That's the normal and correct way to calculate it. And also how it was done in the OP.

Lump sum and hourly rates are also valid methods. Neither should be particularly cheaper or more expensive for the same service.

bennyineire

I built my house in 2005/06, from memory it was €5K flat fee in Offaly but that was just for the supervision and sign off of the construction stages. The planning was down barter style with my mate but it would have been around €2.5K then.

So around €7.5K total was standard enough back then, I've no idea of prices now

Mellor

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/2058259762/not-so-much-the-cost-of-an-architect-but-the-they-charge-that-bowled-me-over

The "typical" % based fee has historically be 10%. But larger or simpler projects, will be more economical. For very small projects, it could and should go up slightly.

A large commercial project might be 2%. Even across houses. Could be 7-10% depending on pretty standard vrs very complex. A extension tends to be more work on an area or cost basis, so I'd expect them to be 8-15%. With 15% being for very small but complex urban extensions.

With no other info about your project, I'd day 15% is high, should be standard range if its in the standard level of detail.

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/119527407#Comment_119527407

25% is the normal percentage charge for the initial design. But what you describe is not what I would called a complete initial design. Should be some form of a survey, concept, options. Feedback. Discussion about planning, budget, costs, etc. Precedent images, example imagery, what you like, don't like etc. This is a hugely important phase in the process. One that most people offering services in Ireland try to breeze past, and copy and paste what ever works.

There are two explanations that make sense, he continued to work post sketches, and is charging for that time (reasonable), he is trying to lock you into the rest of the phase, and/or get paid regardless (unreasonable),

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/119527415#Comment_119527415

This is not your mistake. This is his mistake. Fees should have been discuss after your site briefing. Most importantly, then need to be agreed, ideally in writing. He is basically working with out a contract. Pretty foolish.

I would go back to him and say that the overall fee (15%) is higher than you expected, and wasn't agreed to. Tell him you'd like to proceed with the project, but you have concerns about the budget, which you are hoping he can assist with. Suggest that once fees are agreed, you sign and contract with a outline descriptions of services.

If he gets the hump (he might), calmly state you've no intention of stiffing him and will gladly pay for his time.

Sleepy

It baffles me why anyone agrees to pay an Architect a percentage of build cost? It's actively incentivising them to waste money.

SodiumCooled

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/119552618#Comment_119552618

Hi Mellor, no it is a fully custom one-off house. I actually rechecked the pricing now as I just guessed in my previous post and its closer to 1.5% than 2% based on an estimating the final build cost - that's for a full service right up to final sign-off. Our architect is RIAI registered not an engineer or technician. We went to him with our ideas and he produced a first draft based on that. We went through multiple iterations over the course of nearly a year (slightly impacted by covid time wise) before finalising on a design for planning.

Its a small local practice that generally only does one-off houses or very small projects rather than a larger place with lots of wages to pay.

kirving

Obviously an architect creativity and experience should be paid for, and they can't be expected to be making proposals all day long and getting nothing for it, but €6k for lets day 2 days work (site visit day 1, sketches day 2) is about €400 per hour, and let's be honest, it was probably less work than that.

Doesn't exactly foster much creativity if it's prohibitively expensive to shop around.

Mellor

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/119552974#Comment_119552974

It's doesn't incentivize wasting money. But I understand why you would think that. Typically workload scales with cost of a project. It's simply used as a guide. You don't actually hand over a 10% tax on every payment to the builder, fees should be locked in advance based on the budget.

But if the budget changes drastically, so would workload and the % fee model covers that.

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/119554225#Comment_119554225

It's great that you seem happy with the service. But we are probably talking about different levels of full service. Concept iterations, and a design for planning, is about half away. For me a full service would include tender package, construction drawings, contract administration, site supervision. If you didn't need that, no issue. 1.5-2% for what you describe is great.

Say build coast was 300k, 1.5% would be 4.5k, it's simply not possible to do the above for that, even with zero overheads.

Or maybe I'm wrong and he not in it for the money, or insanely efficient. 😅

Sleepy

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/119554969#Comment_119554969

When an architect is hired on a percentage of build basis, he or she is incentivised to push the budget to it's maximum (or as we so often see on the myriad of programmes that follow self builders or those renovating old properties, far in excess of the original budget). It quite literally costs the architect money to suggest cheaper design options (e.g. a column that might save tens of thousands in steel-work versus a fully cantilevered overhang), choice of materials, spec of finish etc. if they're getting paid on the basis of a percentage of the final design spec.

At the end of the day, they're providing a professional service and should be billing on the basis of time worked. I'm in no way denigrating the value an architect can bring to a project, I just find it unfathomable that the market still allows them to use a billing model that actively incentivises them to work against their clients best interests. Working in professional services in a different industry myself (IT Services), it seems very out-dated!

houseyhouse

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/119555171#Comment_119555171

But they don’t increase their costs every time the build cost increases. In our case, we met the architect and discussed the project. Then, based on that discussion, they sent an estimate of the total cost and fees based on that estimate. Those are the fees we pay, even if the project goes over because we get more expensive floors/kitchen etc. Or if building prices go up, or even if we change the layout. If we started adding a lot of complicated details that require them to spend a lot more time on the project, then they could up the fees (which is reasonable) but they’ve told us that’s uncommon.

SodiumCooled

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/119554969#Comment_119554969

Maybe it was lost in the middle of the text of my post but when I said full service I mean exactly what you say above it includes everything from concept to planning and construction drawings (which I’ve had some small iteration on also), admin for the bank pre-mortgage, drawdowns, supervision/sign off right up to final sign off.

the one thing not in included is preparing a tender pack as I didn’t get once since I am doing direct labour but some material lists have been provided which needed particular specs e.g. steel.

Our build cost is in the 400 to 450k region and architect fee was about 2.5k to planning and 4.5k for construction stage.

The region I’d guess means things vary a lot - I am in a quiet country area in the south east not in Dublin or other large urban area so I would think that has a big influence on fees.

Mellor

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/119555171#Comment_119555171

Those decisions aren’t the architects to make. They don’t control the budget. They can suggest materials, but the decision is the clients. At that point they should compare to the allowance. If the budget allow carpet, changing to timber floor during construction, they should be aware - and made aware, that this is an increase on the allowance.

A column verses cantilever is a pretty big design change. I don’t think it’s fair to present one as a meaningless waste. The latter requires a lot more work and detailing toget right. That design change and time should be paid for.

as mention, not every single increase will be factored in. Trivial stuff will be let pass. The point of % based fee to to recognise scope creep. It’s very hard to get paid for scope creep under a lump sum, unless the design is frozen, which isn’t great imo.

Working in IT, how you you see a similar scale job being billed? Very curious as to what better alternative you have.

Mellor

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/119555839#Comment_119555839

Exactly. It’s a guide to set the agreed fee. And only adjusted in the scope has turned it into a bigger project. Adding rooms, features etc

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/119557172#Comment_119557172

I understand what you saying. That it was the full service that you needed. But that’s not a full service imo. And I’m not begrudging you or your architect that, just to be clear.

Going direct labour, you were comfortable cutting out tender, and then obviously contract admin. Those are two significant phases. Could be 50% of the fee on a complex project. Maybe less on a house. That’s what I would consider a full scope. A full procurement and oversight on site. If that’s not required, then fee should absolutely be reduced. Although, 2% is exceptionally low. So great deal there.

Sleepy

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/119557581#Comment_119557581

In an IT services contract we'd issue a quote/tender response based on a number of days work at an agreed daily rate (based on the detail outlined in the tender being responded to or an initial consultation meeting with the client). The time taken to prepare the response to tender or meet with the prospective client up to this point wouldn't be chargeable, just a cost of doing business.

If the quote is accepted we'd do a detailed project plan with the client outlining the scope of works and days/hours required for each task within the project to lock down the specification. Any change to scope after this point which affects the no of days would lead to a change control that would trigger additional billing at the same daily rate as the original contract.

Sleepy

My point on the "column verses cantilever" wasn't that it isn't a major design change, it was the suggest that the architect is always monetarily incentivised to push for the cantilever if he or she gets to pocket a percentage of the extra costs caused by that design feature. Another example could be an architect including curved glazing or a particular render / cladding in the initial design. The result might be a slightly better end result but it's not always going to be the case and, in particular, it may not end up with a house that the client is X thousand euro happier with.

So, say I tell the architect in our initial conversation that the max budget for the build is 500k. He or she is incentivised to use every cent of that budget, even if they know they could achieve a house that would meet or exceed all of my needs and wants for 450k (plucking figures out of the air here obviously).

Mellor

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/119558117#Comment_119558117

I don’t think the cost of responding to a tender is ever chargeable. I don’t think IT is a special case there.

So your criticism of % based fee is that it encourages bloating costs. But do you not see the obvious parallel with time based fees? In that they encourage bloating of the time spent. Every change is carte blanche to claim it takes a bit longer and charge more. That is why the % system came about, as projects scope almost always changes and there needed to be a way to quantify the s open at A and B.

In cases where the scope is fixed. The fee is fixed.

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/119558152#Comment_119558152

But it’s not their decision to include the cantilever or the curved glass. If the agreed budget is €xxx,xxx, and those elements are a design change that’s adds €50,000 on top. It’s the clients decision to proceed or not. It’s like an IT client deciding to add a more work to your scope.

If they are produced by the architect from the get go, over the budget, under their agreed fee. They don’t get to charge more.

With the second example, if somebody has a budget if 500k. They would translate to a area and level of finish. Their would be a fee agreed for the work. Let’s say though economical selections you can save the client 50k with no redesign. There’s no change in scope. The fee doesn’t get smaller as the scope hasn’t changed.

As I said, The % is used as a guide to agree a fee for a rough scope. If they over design, they don’t get paid more - the fee was agreed. They get paid more where the client makes changes they increase costs (and thus scope)