Seeking Pkanning Permission- where to start/Costs etc

kidsbo wrote: »

Architects and Engineers in Ireland provide pretty much the same services when it comes to domestic works. What you need is a) someone who understands the planning process in Cork and b) someone you feel comfortable dealing with. It doesnt really matter if they are an architect or an engineer. We used an engineers in innishannon (am I allowed give their details?) and they were brillant. The site was in a scenic area but they came up with a great design that went through planning without any hassle.

I think if you look at sydthebeat's post above you'll see the difference between one end of the territory and the other in terms of quality of work.
In fact even that is wrong because some thought has been put into the Southfork option and the workmanship in terms of Part D looks fine..

In relation to the design, you can argue that either a disinterested architect or diligent engineer might produce the Southfork option, but I think you will agree that only an architect confident in his ability and competent to address the wide rage of issues arising with on-the-edge design work could have produced the latter.

Mind you even the Southfork option looked at above would need at a minimum a good architectural technician doing the detailing if rendered block cavity walling or timbe frame was being used, particularly in relation to the end wall sunroom cavity wall trays detail.

Whatever your opinion is in relation to the equality or otherwise of architects and engineers, architects claim competence over the wide range of the building regulations - engineers, by their own terms of reference, only deal with Part A - Structure.

This is where costs of fees are sometimes judged unfairly between architects and engineers.
Engineers make no claims in relation to overall building design, only in relation to structural design.
You are not getting the same competences and the sad truth is some people cannot tell the difference.
This is where the government's renewed committment to raising awareness of architectural quality and design of the built environment is to be praised.

ONQ.

At the risk of being slapped for wandering off topic [again] I'd put my tuppence in here and note that the architect may have actually doing his job in the way he had been trained to do it.

Now before you go all go off saying "bloody typical" hear me out...

There are several different ways to approach house design.

1. Architect's Concept
2. Organic Planning
3. System Build
4. Client wishes/Planner's demands

Not all architects are good at all approaches and young architects who are by nature god at conceptualising and presenting and winning competitions may not bend their design to what the client sees as his needs too easily.

There are some features of approach common to all architects - or there should be, in my opinion and based on my experience.

Architects are trained to firstly define their brief.
This is the seminal part of the work and at its most basic can merely be a list of accommodation - often with named rooms and required dimensions or areas for each room.
During the briefing session(s) the architect must form an opinion in relation to the kind of client he is dealing with and choose and appropriate way to approach the work


1. Architect's Concept

This is the fait accompli approach - the architect takes this brief, develops his initial plan and evolves a conceptual framework on which to base the design. This is most suited to a client who goes to an architect or design office whose work in the area is known and who delivers iconic pieces with a certain "look" and feel to them.

The architect will deliver an integrated design based on this concept and unless it fails to include some or all of the brief accommodation its up to the client to approve or request another proposal specifying why the first one failed ot meet their requirements and instructing the architect in relation to changes required, or a complete revision if that's what's requried.

In this approach, loosely termed "concept" the client's role is limited in relation to design input and for many architects this is the "pure" role of the architect, but not all architects agree with this approach. The joy of getting this approach right will have great benefits to all concerned particularly if the architect has developed any level of "star" status - the house becomes an icon and talking point, not just a "machine for living in".


2. Organic Planning

This tends to be a slower process of design, working from the same brief and where we employ it, the client is requested to involve him/herself fully in the design process. We take the view and unless specifically requested to perform otherwise [the other three options], this is the kind of approach that delivers the best results in terms of client satisfaction and the architects role is one of guide to the realisation of both the clients dreams and his ambitions for the design.

Nothing here is assumed, even the clients ability to read a drawing is not taken for granted, and much research on final "look" and form of the building, detail samples, joinery samples and pegging out of the initial designs on site must be done to fully engage the client at all stages. If you don't do this, if the client fails to fully realise the involvement and committment this approach demands, the approach will fail and no-one will come away happy. We have yet to see it fail however, FWIW.


3. System Build

This is where the client has adopted a particular supplier of goods, i.e. a timber frame supplier, or a particular type of insulated blockwork they absolutely have to use, and this requirement layers on top of any approach, whether concept or organic. Naturally if the choice gels with the architect a good concept can sometimes be delivered, but the exploratory nature of the initial work on concept design approach will probably find this too limiting.

Using an organic planning approach integrating structure early on can be used like a grid approach - as a useful restriction to limit the choices available. On the other hand it can be left until the end of the process to try and minimise and impact - i.e. the clients wishes will be accommodated, but by involvement in the process the client will hopefully get enough confidence in their own conceptual abilities [and most clients we have dealt with have loads of design ability, often unused or under-used].

Usually the choice of a material or good like this can limit expression, because the client has fallen in love with a particular picture in a magazine produced by the maker of the good. How many times have we seen this and find that the development in question isn't built of the same material at all, or is on a site that's five times the size of the client site, or is done in a for mof expression that won't pass planning in the locality.

The success or otherwise of this approach can often rest on value added elements the architect brings to the design and a willingness to relax restrictions on the part of the client.
Also the system builder suppler can be either a blessing or a curse and a good architect engages with them fully from the outset and impresses upon them that all design input must be routed through him, for cost assessment as well as advising the client. Getting dumped in favour of the system builder's in house engineer wouldn't impress us.


4. Client wishes/Planner's demands

All briefs are drawn up with the intention of realising the clients wishes in three dimensions and, unless its exempted development, with the intent of evolving somethig from the brief that will receive statutory approval.

A good designer will naturally try to go beyond this to bring in elements of sustainability and energy conservation as well as good design and visual amenity to ensure that the final product has benefits not just for the client but the public good.

However, some briefs are so constrained that the architect may feel he is being reduced to drawing up a set of plans. The Planner is dictating the look of the building, aping some approach he fancies - traditional or modern - in the locaility. The client is utterly inflexible in how the architect is interpreting the brief, mistaking this inflexibility for good management of design input.

This is the worst of all worlds for a design and I know of many commercial practice where situations like this arise daily and where service to the client is paramount over design and the driving need is to get work to billing stages to allow the practice to keep going.

The architects job here is a hard one. It is possible to develop better designs, but it will require a lot of time with the client to convince them of this approach, time the client will not pay for. Similarly, if the proposed amended design is good enough, it may sway the planning officer, or the architect may have to appeal to the next tier in the local authority, a fraught approach and one that may have repercussions the next time he applies for planning and the same planner is allocated.


All right, that's my possibly off topic two pennies worth.
The point being that a misunderstanding of the architects role and a restrictive approach by the client allied to poor communication of his role by the architect can lead to dissatisfaction.
Communication is the key and defining terms of reference is the answer and this should be done at the outset.
We have had a lot of practice in "reading" situations and clients, so we foresee these situations arising.
As one excellent post puts it, "don't go off all fish because you ate one poor meal".
I'd add: "don't assume a yes man is giving you what you really want, its only what you think you want and a good design is aware that needs and fashions in house design change over time."

I hope this sheds some light on the debate and apologise in advance if its wandered too far off topic/ gone on too long.

ONQ.

kidsbo wrote: »

I can only base my opinion on my experiences...I had a crap experience with an architect and a good experience with an engineer.I would have thought the first job of each profession is to serve the interests of the client.the architect failed to do that but the engineer did so exactly.on the basis of my experiences I would employ an engineer if I was looking for planning again.I am surprised at the strength of feeling on the topic and, in particular, the relative inability of those who responded to my comments to take on board my opinion...it reminds me of my previous dealings with an architect.

Its difficult when people don't agree with you, that's true.

We've had a lot of experience in conflict resolution at briefing and later stage and it often arises from the client's job or the non-working spouses reaction to it and the consequential effect this has on the designer.
In the latter case the architect can be the non-working spouses whipping boy, or can fall into the trap of being used by one spouse to annoy the other. Its best to withdraw in such situations.

As regards the main client; -
People in positions of middle management are often under pressure and fail to engage with the staff beneath them, preferring to rule by fear and authority.
Sometimes they try to impose their will from behind a wall on their architect.
This is never a good idea and ruins the relationship that must be developed.
The architect must see this and break down that wall before he puts pen to paper.

Of course some clients are strong designers and the architect really is only the magicians hand, bringing their ideas to live but only refining, not designing from a conceptual or organic basis.

However some clients seem to think that because they drive an expensive German or Italian car they are brilliant at everything, including design, when in fact their talents lie in personnel management and they havent a design bone in their bodies.
Such people only need yes men who'll do as their told and make sure the building is well founded and dosn't leak - and take their money and smile.

People with a Christian background focus in the afterlife. Our experience is that you get what you pay for in this world; sometimes you get what you deserve; and, in a lot of cases, what goes around comes around.

But yes, seem to be a lot of arrogant designers out there - not just architects BTW you get prima donna landscape contractors too .
I'm sorry to hear you had a bad experience with one.

ONQ.

BenK wrote: »

I think this has probably been covered enough at this stage and I don't mean to go on but... Kidsbo, I don't intend to be rude but I gather from your posts that getting your planning permission was the be all and end all for you. That's fine and I'm glad you had a decent relationship with your engineer but I'd suggest that design (actual design and not the repetition of 'styles' and 'house types' and 'layouts' prevalent all over the country) was not particularly high on your list of priorities. I'd happily be proved wrong on this however. This debate isn't meant to be a slight on engineers and to clarify: what they provide, an architect can't provide and similarly what an architect provides they can't provide. I don't think this is about opinions over one or the other, it's about clarification of the roles of the engineer and architect and that's probably why you've had such a strong response to your initial post.

While its easy to choose a simple definition, ts not that cut and dried.

Admittedly I know few engineers that can design a house as well as even a weak designer who's been through the five year course, but take a look at an exceptional engineer, Calatrava.

I know planning consultants who are reasonable urban designers, but I've done masterplans myself and have a pretty good track record on appeals and oral hearings [no this is not touting for the work, thans].

I know several architects who can do the structural calculations for small buildings and many more technicians who can do them.

But exceptions aside, if you're looking for a decent house design, choose an architect or competent architectural technician with a flair for design.

And when you're looking for a structural cert, the engineer is yer only man.

Any one of them can make the planning application, as can a competent surveyor.

Architect are often used because they can swear declarations in relation to property matters.

FWIW

ONQ.

BenK wrote: »

Just saw ONQ's reply there re. architects and engineers, you got there before me!

<bows>

Next time you'll be first.

ONQ.

RKQ wrote: »

Slowly Clients are begining to appreciate good design and the latter photo is becoming more common. Unfortunately many still aspire to the first photo.

I've never really understood why "people" want mock Georgian or mock Victorian homes yet aspire to the latest flat screen tv and latest car design? Good modern design is feared in favour of "old world".

Unfortunately people seem to believe that modern design costs more to build or maybe they just don't want to stand out - fearing that their modern design will quickly go out of fashion and age.

These are interesting times.

<nods>

You don't see many TV sets done in the "antique" style, do you? No.
The reason you don't see more "traditional" TV's is because the marketing people haven't spotted the market.
However - and you read it here first - I bet there is a huge market for TV sets that don't look like they're made out of ceramic or plastic.
I know one client who has just completed his study fit out and its wall to wall timber with the "technical bits" set in timber surrounds and in pop-up enclosures in his desk.

As for traditional designed houses, as an architect or designer its too easy to be judgemental in relation to clients.
Design has done through many phases of development in the last 150 years, but people remain largely the same.
Most of the standing architecture in our towns and cities is still traditional build.
The places where tourists flock contain buildings that are over 200 years old.
In case people aren't taking the hint, in some way Modernism has failed to satisfy the desires of ordinary people.
Suggesting this is because they aren't "educated in design" seems to be a self-fulling argument that is avoiding the root cause.
Traditional building uses an language of forms and materials that allows us to relate to it.
Modernist or one off buildings that don't employ this traditional lexicon seem to be speaking in a foreign language to people who aren't well versed in free-form design.
It may be that in years to come the numbers of moderist building will predominate, but I suspect then the problem will be different.
There will be dialects which nearly talk to each other but don't and you'll end up with style battles similar to the religious wars of the past, with each side claiming some kind of moral superiority over the others, just as the moderns continue to claim over other forms of design today.

Anyway I have been "adminished" for wandering off topic too much so I will stop there.

FWIW

ONQ.

muffler wrote: »

onq, this persistent and deliberate off topic posting has to stop and stop now. You were asked privately to do so but that request has fallen on deaf ears so now you are being told publicly.

Part of your contributions are always constructive and informative and are, of course, welcome but we would rather not see them when they continually drag almost every single thread off topic.

You can do better.

Hi Muffler,

Thanks for your comments and I note the following; -.

My own self-criticism about being off-topic related to the last three lines of speculative comment about future trands in design in my reply to RKQ.
That means less than 20% of the comments in that post were off topic and even they were directly relating to the issue I discussed in that post.
The rest of my reply to RKQ and the entire of my reply to seclachi were both totally on-topic.
They lay well within the latitude shown in this thread by Mellor and Sydthebeat.
If you have other, specific standards of behaviour for me, please be explicit.

ONQ.