Thread: Architect Question

Hi Guys,

We are getting some modest extensions done to the front of our double story brick veneer 70s house.

This will primarily consist of:
* Remodelling kitchen
* Reclaiming balcony area (currently concrete suspended slab)
* Deck at front
* Remodelling front entrance

Anyways, we have come across an architect (friend or a friend) who will take our job on as a private client arangement for $100/hour whilst on she is on maternity leave.

She only does 1) measured drawings and 2) sketch design, and says that we then need to find a builder / draftsman to do the rest (i.e. approvals, structural verification etc)

Is this a good way to go? I like her work, but am concerned that I am overlooking something? Although maybe this will work out cheaper than using an architect for the whole thing?

Please help,
frog_hopper

Why use her at all ? Why not go straight to the drafty ? 100 bucks an hour for a bird on maternity leave dont do it

Must admit I was thinking the same thing. I've never enlisted the services of an architect, but I'd expect to pay a fair bit for the privilege - not that it's not worth it mind you - but it depends on what you want. However to want to charge $100/hour for a job on the side, I reckon is a bit rich. But again I say that not knowing what the standard charge out rate is.

Perhaps you would be better with a building designer. I had an entire dual occupancy dwelling of 4 beds + 3 beds designed, drawn up and DA submitted by a building designer for about $3,500. What we wanted was pretty standard - normal looking house, nothing fancy. If you want something 'out there' then you'll probably need an architect.

It's a shame bitingmidge is away at present, he loves these questions

Well, I am thinking that it might be worth it for the 'ideas'. We want to create a nice entrance (two story void or something that lets the light it), and despite looking at countless magazines, still can't work it out. I thought I would have to have the ideas in place before i spoke to a drafty?

Get out your tape measure, do a scale sketch of the floor plan, take some pics of the house, and post it all up.
You may get some suggestions and ideas thrown at you.

Go for it!!!! $100 per hour is cheap .... even for a job on the side. Standard charge out rates are around $120p/h graduate $150-180p/h architect $200p/h director. It might sound steep but it isn't often that you work by the hour.

With that being said get a fixed price and a scope of what you are going to expect for your money. $100 per hour could quickly escalate and you may end up sending more than you want to and end up with less than you need.

Make sure that she is using cad and will hand over the file, even if it is only sketch design. It will save the drafty time, and you money later on. Sounds like she is pulling out at sketch design due to not being registered yet (happens for a number of reasons, not necessarily no good at their job), or possibly no professional liability insurance (mmm sounds like somebody I know).

We can go on and on about the differences between the drafty, building designer and architect but at the end of the day it depends on the quality of the individual, not what their formal training may be. The architect shouldn't be seen as only being able to do something 'out there' but a good architect will be able to bring your ideas to life, and also use their experience and knowledge on structure and materials, which hopefully will save you heart ache in the future.

As for having the architect oversee the entire thing .... possibly not worth it. It is a small job by the sounds of it and it will be hard to find somebody interested. If the structure is basic the builder will be able to get by with the structural engineers details and the basic drawings required for the town planning (possibly DA) and building permit (or your equivalent). The kitchen can be detailed by the manufacturer as they will provide you with the best advise.

Good luck with it .....

OK thanks for advise - really appreciate everyone's comments.

Just one more thing - can anyone advise how much detail i can expect in a sketch design? Does this go into what materials are to be used or is it just of a high level sketch of things?

Cheers

Your sketch design should be at a detail so that you can understand what is going on but perhaps not everything has been resolved. You can specify what level of detail that you want the architect to acheive, but at the end of the day it will take longer and cost more.

The level that you are looking at achieving is to a stage where you can give the drawings to your drafty and they can build on them.

Design development which is the next stage will formalise elevations, notes, dimensions etc. to a level suitable to gain permits.

You do realise that you will need an engineer, to do the design?

Cheap is dear.

The architect is trained to design. A draftsman is trained to draw someone elses design.

The architect has a good idea of what costs what and should be able to design to a price. This is his/her area of expertise. The draftsman is trained to draw.

The architect will have an in-depth knowledge of building materials. The draftsman is trained to draw.

The architect is trained (and hopefully experienced) in dealing with local councils and their regulations. The draftsman is trained to draw.

Should I go on?

Taking short cuts puts you at risk for expensive problems. Why do this. The fee you have been quoted is cheap. I am having a professional office built over the garage. The architect's fee (also as a private job) is about $3000. He has liaised with the builder, the three of us has met, sorted out costs, and I am happy to be left in the hands of a capable buider.

Oh, my father and sister are both architects. Unfortunately dad is 93 and my sister lives in another country. I was initially trained as a quantity surveyor (including training as a draftsman). I do know what's what.

Regards from Perth

Derek

Originally Posted by DvdHntr

You do realise that you will need an engineer, to do the design?

You may need a geotech, and footings design, but your council may have a specification. Beyond that you won't necessarily have to have an engineer if the construction design is within code parameters.

Originally Posted by derekcohen

A draftsman is trained to draw someone elses design.

The architect has a good idea of what costs what and should be able to design to a price. This is his/her area of expertise. The draftsman is trained to draw.

The architect will have an in-depth knowledge of building materials. The draftsman is trained to draw.

The architect is trained (and hopefully experienced) in dealing with local councils and their regulations. The draftsman is trained to draw.

Perhaps that would describe a draftsman who's working for an architect, but a lot of them go out on their own after achieving competence in all the areas that you've outlined, and a lot of them put a bit of time into providing all the services that the public would require from an architect.
You can save yourself some serious dough if you find the right guy. Unfortunately, he won't have 'B Arch' written after his name, but you'll just have to live with that.

You can save yourself some serious dough ...

What do you call serious douugh? $500 ... $1000 ... $1500

On a job costing $25 - 100K? (or more).

You'd risk that for $1000? (or less).

Good luck.

Regards from Perth

Derek

I have used an Architect on a number of occassions from full drawings and service to just concept. The most recent was this year when renovating an office. $100 per hour is cheap, so far we have been very happy with the ideas and the end result. Quite honestly if you want a bog basic, boring unimaginative piece of work go the drafsman, the building inspector will love it as will the builder as it will be nice and simple and not to hard. Work with the Architect and you should still end up with something affordable but with a bit of style and flair. I'm with Derek and Sir Stinky the amount you pay compared to the total cost of the job is reasonable, and the end result should reflect the extra effort put in by someone with a few clues. FWIW I am not saying draftsman don't have ideas its just that I'm yet to find one who has.

The office job cost $1500 (design fee), we needed an engineers report for loads on door openings and we did the drawing ourselves as the physical walls remained unchanged. What we paid for was internal layout, design ideas and colour, and it was worth every penny.

Whatever you do get a fixed price. Every day she works will cost you $800. Can you afford that? How can you monitor her "design hours". Truth is that you cannot do it. If she comes up with something that doesn't work for you, do you still pay her?

I like using architects when I want ideas. That said, some of the so called designs I've seen are very ordinary.

Talking to a builder also has potential as far as designs are concerned. Mostly because they are exposed to the work of architects and designers. In my experience, there is very little that is not adopted from elsewhere. The most notable exception to this is the amazing "gherkin building" in London.

Did I say that you should get a fixed price before you proceed.

Originally Posted by derekcohen

You'd risk that for $1000? (or less).

Well the architect that my sister hired five years ago cost me and her a lot more than that in his mistakes.

He'd drawn up the plans and got them approved based on a surveyors report with an indemnifying disclaimer attached. I'd cleared my slate to start work, and when I rang the surveyor to define the boundaries, he came back a week later with a ridiculously high estimate to do the job. We got someone else with a cheaper estimate and it took three months to resolve the matter. It was some crap about the only defined boundaries on record, dated back to when farmer Jim swapped a pig for a metre of his neighbour's land, and my sisters boundary was supposed to be a foot inside where the proposed extension had been drawn, even after the 900mm setback was taken into account. It's just lucky for the architect that after paying a small fortune to formalize everything, she was able to register the boundary where the existing fence was located. If not, the extension would have been a metre smaller, and a bit impractical for her needs.

When I was part way through the footings, I had a good look at the plans and noticed that the upstairs bathroom, partly in a roof space had a head height of just 1200mm at the wall. Apart from being illegal, it was obviously totally impractical, and had to be re-drawn by stealing floorspace from an adjoining landing and bedroom. If construction of the upper floor and drainage had started without modification of the plans, it would have been a disaster. Shear incompetence I'd call it, and my sister wasn't impressed with the loss of floor area. I can assure you it's not the first time I've picked up mistakes in an architects drawings either. Some of them major.

His estimate on the job was $150,000, and it ended up costing over $50,000 before a shovel was turned, and over $300,000 in total, even after some cost cutting from the extravagant specifications on the plans. Some of the materials specified were ridiculously expensive and I don't think he had a clue, but I suppose they would have looked good in his resume. He'd specified a two storey sandstone veneered external wall along a narrow side path that would be barely noticeable from anywhere. The price was astronomical, so the wall was bagged by he bricklayers as they built the wall instead. If she'd known the cost in advance, she'd never have started the job, and she wouldn't be battling to pay the mortgage now.

There's incompetent clowns in every game, and having a 'B Arch' in your name won't indemnify you from idiocy. I'd certainly advise my sister not to go for someone who was fresh out of UNI again. A draftsman with a bit of experience under his belt would be a much safer bet.
Of course some architects are very good, and they give 2:1 details of every tricky aspect, with every screw noted, and everything fits. But some just give you a 1:100 drawing that looks good on paper, but just doesn't work in a three dimensional world. It's the builder that finds this out, and often too late.

The architect is trained to design. A draftsman is trained to draw someone elses design.

You're missing the bloke in the middle: the building designer. He or she is not an architect but is more than a draftsman. They are conversant with the building code and know how to design a building that meets the standards for construction and energy conservation (well, our guy did, anyway).

Being loosely connected with the building industry, I have heard many stories of the follies of architects

Originally Posted by derekcohen

The architect is trained to design. A draftsman is trained to draw someone elses design.

The architect does general drawings and the draughtsman structural drawings. The architects do not design anything. They simply place what they think is correct.

You need a designer which is usually an engineer as they are the ones that do the structural design. The council will need to see that the design is structurally sound. The Building Designer is probably a builder that thinks he can do the engineers job.

Wrong. A building designer is a draughtsman who designs buildings, not a builder. The guy I used referred the structural design to an engineer. I'd say for the majority of residential jobs that encompasses the footings and the bracing and tie down specs. Trusses are designed by the truss company. The engineer will design the slab if there is one. The building designer can design floor and wall framing, no engineering qualification required if you use span tables etc. from suppliers (Duragal or LVL for example) or straight from the framing manual for hardwood or softwood framing.

Originally Posted by DvdHntr

The architect does general drawings and the draughtsman structural drawings. The architects do not design anything. They simply place what they think is correct.

Where did you get that misinformation from!

If placing things in places that are correct - both structurally and esthetically isn't design I don't know what is!

I think Sir Stinkalot is on the money. Give your architect a clear brief of what you want to achieve.

Get a clear costings of each stage that she will produce.

IE Design concepts say $1200
DA drawings say $2,000
BA and working drawings etc etc. (if she can do it herself or get her to recommend someone (draftsman, engineer etc) that can work with her and get a price from them so its all agreed before anything starts.

The old adage you get what you pay for... an Architectural draftsman may be good if you have a good sense of design yourself and you can express yourself on paper ....if not pay a professional.

All I know is that achitects do not do actual structural design. They may nominate some sizes based on the information provided. I have never heard of a building designer before. So they are a draughtsman that looks up tables to get the member sizes correct. Just be careful that the whole project is structurally sound is my advice.

So they are a draughtsman that looks up tables to get the member sizes correct.

They do a bit more than that. I would expect someone who designs buildings to be conversant with the BCA, BASIX and the bushfire building guidelines. They should have a good idea of how a house is built, what products are on the market, and what local builders do in certain situations. I'd expect them to be able to come up with a floor plan that takes into account what the client wants, the standard sizes and clearances for particular rooms, the best way to orient a house in regard to prevailing winds, view and the Northern aspect. I'd expect them to be able to layout a floor plan to take best advantage of sheet sizes and to second guess construction problems that might arise.

With the guy we used, my wife and I drew up a floor plan based on what we wanted. We sat down with him and went through it, listing what we definitely wanted, what would be nice to have, and what we wanted in terms of finish. He took it away, pulled it apart, put it back together so that it worked and showed it to us. We changed a few things and he drew up all the plans and submitted the DA. Cost: $1500 + council fees etc.

When it was approved, he drew up the construction drawings (basically dimensioned floor plans, cross sections, sub-floor details, specifications) and had the engineer provide a separate engineer's detail which included strip footing and slab design, bracing plan, tie down details and specifications. He submitted these and obtained the construction certificate. Cost: $3000 including engineer's fee. We then built it.

Some people here do not use an engineer at all. Not all projects require it. We preferred to use one for the slab design, the rest was just convenient. As far as I know, none of these things require a specific engineer's certification if they are covered by engineering details from the supplier, or are done according to an Australian standard. It's an insurance policy but not mandatory, or so I believe. Could be wrong...

Originally Posted by DvdHntr

All I know is that achitects do not do actual structural design. They may nominate some sizes based on the information provided.

Well they both work together if something is unusual in its concept.

Joern Utzon originally designed the opera house with a sleeker, lower profile, with larger overhangs, but with the technology available at the time it was impossible:

The engineers tried for a long time to make the architects' original concept work, but finally both had to agree on a different approach.

At the conclusion of the intense discussions between Arup and Utzon on the final geometry of the roof shells, Arup said: 'We did not want to pull the architect down to hell, but we wanted him to pull us up to heaven'.
Clickypop

I think there are architects and there are architects. Any architect around here who did not also provide a full design & drafting service as well would probably go out of business. Structural Engineers have their place but they're not the be all and end all of building design.

Should I tell the story here about the local engineer who designed a local builder's precast concrete walls but forgot to include reo. They were poured on site flat on the ground and when they tried to
stand one up, it broke in half. That cost him a few ski trips.

Originally Posted by silentC

and had the engineer provide a separate engineer's detail which included strip footing and slab design, bracing plan, tie down details and specifications. He submitted these and obtained the construction certificate.

For structural steel you may also need shop drawings. For my sisters' place, I did them myself and saved her a few grand. It cost me a lot of after work hours, but in the end everything fitted like a glove, and the crane operator was impressed.

If you use a system like Duragal, there is an engineering certification that covers the system in general and as long as you adhere to the span tables and installation directions, it's all covered by OneSteel's engineering department. We just had the designer give the option of steel or fire-treated timber for the external floor framing in the construction details (because we hadn't made up our minds which way to go).

But yes I guess for anything site-specific you'd need engineer's details for. I wanted to put in a 6 metre universal beam over a carport once, so I went to an engineer and while I waited he did a freehand sketch with connections and footing details on a bit of foolscap and put his stamp on it for $80!

The guy I used to design my slab in Sydney was over 80. He designed buildings and other structures at Randwick race course in his youth. He used to wear a tie and a pullover with a kid skateboarding on the front. When I first met him I thought "what have I done hiring this bloke" but all the guys at the council knew him. Not sure if that was a good or bad thing. Slab is still there as far as I know.

I just have never heard of a building designer before.

Well, if you haven't heard of them, they mustn't exist, right?

They've even got an association: http://www.bdaa.com.au/

And our bloke is a member: http://www.findadesigner.com.au/view...esigner_id=916

Interesting stat from the BDAA site:

The BDAA estimates that 75-80% of residential work is currently designed by building designers. These figures appear to be consistent with the findings of other groups.

Thanks for that link Silent.

Originally Posted by pawnhead

There's incompetent clowns in every game, and having a 'B Arch' in your name won't indemnify you from idiocy. I'd certainly advise my sister not to go for someone who was fresh out of UNI again. A draftsman with a bit of experience under his belt would be a much safer bet.

Thanks for the laugh .... this is the best thread I have come across in some time.

You (and your sister) have been burnt by going with the cheapest priced architect around ..... graduating doesn't mean that you are ready to start running your own projects. It would appear that you didn't do any research into your chosen (graduate) architect and they obviously were not up to the task.

If you were charged with murder would you have a graduate lawyer fresh out of uni to represent you or would you go with somebody with some experience ?????

In all fields university is a training ground, however there is many years of industry experience required to be fully trained.

An architect here in Victoria needs 5 years full time study, then a minimum of 2 years industry training under the supervision of a registered architect spending a minimum time on a number of different competences and then sit an exam and finally an interview board.

I am not trying to attack you personally pawnhead, but you seem quite happy to slander any architect based on your bad experience using a uni graduate. As you said yourself a drafty with a bit of experience is a better bet ..... anybody with experience is a better bet.

Building designers are restricted on what projects that they can work on. From memory it is 4+ storey .... however I could be wrong. This is just based off working with a building designer for 18 months.

This has allowed the building designer to become very competitive in the residential field which is why many architects are not interested in the smaller jobs. The residential market is filled with mums and dad who would rather save $10k on the design of their $300k house so they can get a new plasma tv to impress their friends. These people are more trouble than they are worth and it is preferable to do commercial, high end residential or developer projects.

I don't know how structural engineers ended up getting labelled as designers. They are trained and experienced in the behaviour of structures. If they are willing to undertake design work then they obviously are light on for work and might best be avoided. You may be prepared to have a shot at your own engineering but at the end of the day if something goes wrong and the brick veneer wall falls on your new plasma tv then you only have yourself to blame.

Your new house, extension, renovation is a big investment .... why cut corners of a small percentage of the overall price?

This thread resembles my pet peeve. I am fiercely Australian, but I get so frustrated and saddened that this country tends to dumb down and actively support the lowest common demoninator.

In so many professions it is possible to find a "look alike", that is someone who sets themself up as a "expert", "professional", whatever, and does so without going through the formal training. What is worse is that this is often supported at governmental level.

Perhaps I am considered old fashioned by some, but to me a "professional" is someone who meets the Internationally accepted and respected standards for that particular profession.

In regard to this thread, do we accept that a "designer" is the equivalent of an "architect", who has 5 years university training. In my own profession, a clinical psychologist requires 6+ years university and 2 years supervised practical experience. Yet the government registers 3 and 4 year graduates as "psychologists" as permits them to do whatever work they like believing that the inexperienced or untrained will self-limit themselves. Anyone can become a "counsellor" with a 2 week correspondence course. There are many other professions where the same dumbing down occurs. Good grief, entrants to teacher courses at university now no longer are required to have finished hgh school (year 12)! How ludicrous is that! What next, GPs that have a 3 year training?

Some may argue that times have changed and that different criteria are now permitted. I have had some say to me that they have every right to do as they please. Or that the public have the right to choose. But the public are not aware of these things and are not aware that they are being short-changed. Standards just continue a downward spiral. Why bother with education at all?

Go and use the services of a undertrained person if it will save you a few Dollars. Make it easy for anyone to do specialised work and you will attract all those who are not willing or capable of going the extra yards. Keep dropping the entry requirements, and you keep dropping the standards.

(This is not about individuals, some who may be very talented. It is about groups, many of the members of whom are not).

Rant over.

Regards from Perth

Derek

Originally Posted by Sir Stinkalot

Thanks for the laugh .... this is the best thread I have come across in some time.

You (and your sister) have been burnt by going with the cheapest priced architect around ..... graduating doesn't mean that you are ready to start running your own projects. It would appear that you didn't do any research into your chosen (graduate) architect and they obviously were not up to the task.

Hey, I didn't want the job, and I had nothing to do with it until after the council had approved it. I didn't like the design, and if she'd asked me I would have told her to hunt around for an experienced draftsman. I knew that a job of this size for a close relative had the potential to cause a lot of grief, and no potential for profit. I did the work 'do and charge' and I worked a lot of un-billed overtime because it was way over budget. I would have been better off if I'd never taken it on and I knew it before I started, but I was doing her a favour.
The architect came to her from the referral of a friend, and I honestly don't know how much or how little experience he'd had, but he looked very young to me.

Originally Posted by Sir Stinkalot

you seem quite happy to slander any architect based on your bad experience using a uni graduate.

Where do you get that idea? I'm not slandering any architect. I described a particular incident as 'sheer incompetence'. Designing a bathroom that's illegal and doesn't fit, then modifying it after it's been drawn to your attention by the builder, well after construction has started, and having to dramatically reduce the planned size of a proposed bedroom, is IMO an episode of 'sheer incompetence'. It stared you right in the face if you simply superimposed the bathroom elevation over the Eastern wall elevation which showed the roof pitch and floor levels clearly marked.
It's a very basic design consideration, and I'm just calling a spade a spade.
He also should have gotten the survey ratified before designing anything. We could have lost over a metre, making it impractical to build. He did get a survey done, but there was a big disclaimer stamped on it saying something to the effect of 'No guarantees. Boundaries not registered'. This basically made it just a useless scrap of paper that you shouldn't be designing anything to. I certainly wasn't going to start building without having the boundaries ratified. You'd be an idiot if you did, and the client may have you in court some day if there were any problems with their neighbours in future. Besides, the council may have requested surveyors certification of boundary set backs when the job was completed. He should have known that and sorted it out first.
And he was way out in his pricing estimate, designing extravagant specifications without costing them first, but that's not slander. I'm simply stating a fact.

Apart from that, I've simply stated that I've seen a lot of mistakes from architects over the past 25 years (most of them rather minor). I've made a lot of mistakes myself and we're all human. Having letters after your name won't guard against them, and I'd give a lot more weight to real life experience over tertiary education, so I simply stated that if you found the right guy you could save a fair bit of dough, and get the same service as someone with a B Arch.

Originally Posted by pawnhead

Of course some architects are very good, and they give 2:1 details of every tricky aspect, with every screw noted, and everything fits. But some just give you a 1:100 drawing that looks good on paper, but just doesn't work in a three dimensional world. It's the builder that finds this out, and often too late.

I think you've taken my comments the wrong way. There's a lot of great architects out there with brilliant designs, and if you want something that's 'off the wall' then that's their specialty, but there's a lot of drafties out there that are more than competent in designing a nice extension to an existing home, especially since frog_hopper seems to have a good idea of what he wants in the first place.

Originally Posted by pawnhead

Get out your tape measure, do a scale sketch of the floor plan, take some pics of the house, and post it all up.
You may get some suggestions and ideas thrown at you.

I don't have any letters after my name (But I almost did. They changed my builders certificate course to a diploma course whilst I was midway through, so I might have been a 'Dip Bld'. As it is, I'm just a 'Dip Stick' builder ), but I'm confident that I could come up with some ideas if I saw a floor plan. Of course whether they're any good or not is another matter, but they'll cost him nothing, and If he likes the ideas, he could take them straight to a draftsman.
Of course I may be borrowing from my own personal experience with well designed architecture. I've worked with a lot of good architects:
http://i7.photobucket.com/albums/y26...ke/JohnDan.jpg
http://i7.photobucket.com/albums/y26...leBeach6-1.jpg
http://i7.photobucket.com/albums/y26...PointPiper.jpg
http://i7.photobucket.com/albums/y26...gueville20.jpg
http://i7.photobucket.com/albums/y26...veBeautyPt.jpg
http://i7.photobucket.com/albums/y26...jGreenwich.jpg
http://i7.photobucket.com/albums/y26...rlingPoint.jpg
http://i7.photobucket.com/albums/y26...foldused-1.jpg
http://i7.photobucket.com/albums/y26...00724515AM.jpg
http://i7.photobucket.com/albums/y26...-200724515.jpg
http://i7.photobucket.com/albums/y26...00724508AM.jpg
http://i7.photobucket.com/albums/y26...07105430AM.jpg

Originally Posted by Sir Stinkalot

You may be prepared to have a shot at your own engineering but at the end of the day if something goes wrong and the brick veneer wall falls on your new plasma tv then you only have yourself to blame.

You're not allowed to design your own engineering beyond taking off approved span tables, and whatever you build must be inspected for structural integrity. That could be by the council, or it could be by your own certifier. Engineers often overdesign to cover themselves, which costs the client even more, and they're not immune to mistakes themselves.
And I'm not slandering any engineers either if that's what you're thinking.

Originally Posted by derekcohen

In my own profession, a clinical psychologist requires 6+ years university and 2 years supervised practical experience. Yet the government registers 3 and 4 year graduates as "psychologists" as permits them to do whatever work they like believing that the inexperienced or untrained will self-limit themselves.

Watch out Derek. Before you know it, they'll be coming to take your job in the name of efficiency.

There's a very interesting and believable science fiction tale here, called Manna.
It's written by Marshall Brain, a well respected computer science teacher, and founder of the popular website "How Stuff Works".

I for one will be welcoming our new robot overlords.

The residential market is filled with mums and dad who would rather save $10k on the design of their $300k house so they can get a new plasma tv to impress their friends. These people are more trouble than they are worth and it is preferable to do commercial, high end residential or developer projects.

That's the kind of attitude that puts the mums and dads off architects and why they have a reputation as being a bunch of arty farty tossers So the message is "don't use a building designer because he hasn't been to uni, but don't see an architect because he can't be bothered with your poxy little house unless you want to appear on Better Homes & Gardens".

In so many professions it is possible to find a "look alike", that is someone who sets themself up as a "expert", "professional", whatever, and does so without going through the formal training. What is worse is that this is often supported at governmental level.

It is up to the client to make sure the person they are using has the appropriate qualifications and experience. I'll take a practical person with a background in building normal bog-standard houses over any of the people who have designed the birdhouses that dot the coast down here. These people are university trained in trying to be different. I may be wrong but there seems to be a certain amount of ego attached to the profession that goes above and beyond what the client wants. I recall the bewildered look on my neighbours face when I asked her how the simple renovation she described to me 12 months earlier had turned into a virtual knock down and rebuild. She still doesn't know why that pole holding up the front balcony had to be 20 degrees off vertical and extend 1 metre above the roof line.

My point is simply that not everyone requires an 'architect designed' home and there are other alternatives, including doing it yourself, or using the services of a building designer. I'm a little bit put out by the insinuation that my new house could be in some way flawed because I didn't use a guy who probably has several plasma screen TVs.

I have no hesitation slandering architects

there seems to be not so much an aversion to quality in the Australian market as more of a naievity , I've spoken to lots of marketing people ( from here and overseas) and they frequently describe Australia as a discount market where a cheaper price has higher emotional value than quality. Also 'newness' has great status to Australian consumers, we are great early adopters of technology. Thus the preference for the big "plasma" rather than spending a bit extra on getting the base structure right, especialy if the neighbors and rellies can't see and comment on where you've spent the extra $30,000.
Having said that, I'm sure that Australian architects are just as much a product of the culture as their clients, lest any of them look down smugly from their Ivory anodised aluminium panel towers.
Cultural cringe? maybe a cultural lack of self confidence.

cheers

Crikey Frog Hopper, your situation has certainly touched a few raw nerves and caused some bad flashbacks!! Without slandering any particular profession, trade, vocation or calling I can appreciate the comments from all sides but they mostly relate to particular, individual situations, and that appears to be the nub.

My advice is to insulate yourself as much as possible from disappointment and or cost surprises by trying to ensure you get the very best 'value added' worth from this engagement.

The expressions 'horses for courses' and 'why get a Rolls Royce if a Holden will do?' come to mind. $100/hr may appear dear but is probably cheap for the ideas and possibilities beyond the mundane range of mere mortals, no matter how experienced. On the other hand $100/hour for the equivalent of digging ditches is not value. If she is fair dinkum she would probably be able to give you a fair direction on where her time and costs are best utilised and who else needs to get involved in the other bits.

When we were having an extension done some years ago I gave the plans to four builders and asked them for a price. One didn't bother replying, one dropped in a written quote, one telephoned with a price and one came and inspected the site, spoke to us about the job, gave us his views on the best way to tackle a few issues and then sent in a written quote broken up into the major components with a schedule of costs for possible variations. He wasn't the cheapest (or the dearest), but guess who got the job! He came in on price and time and the quality was exceptional. Short story I suppose is it is to your advantage to suss out and be comfortable with who and what you are paying for.

If you spend a bit of preparation time with her nailing down exactly what you want from her, what design impact she can provide 'over and above' the obvious/ordinary, putting some parameters around what you are paying for and the total expected price (which should not be exceeded without prior approval) for her part up front, you may save some consternation later on.

There's goodens and shonks in most areas - up to you how you select and sort em out. Good luck

Thus the preference for the big "plasma" rather than spending a bit extra on getting the base structure right, especialy if the neighbors and rellies can't see and comment on where you've spent the extra $30,000.

I honestly don't believe there would be too many people who forgo an architect for the sake of a plasma TV. Yes, I imagine there probably are people who think like that, but come on!

I think there is definitely a perception that architects are for people with money who want an 'award winning' design. I think the motivation for enlisting one in a lot of cases is no different to the motivation that might lead some people to reserve some cash for the big screen TV - prestige and impressing the neighbours. But I actually believe that most people buy big TVs because they like watching TV!

I reject the notion that only a trained architect can design a house that is structurally sound - in fact a lot of the creations of architects require a lot of input from structural engineers just to make them feasible at all. I don't believe it's necessary to spend $30,000 on such things to get them right. If you follow the standards set out, use an engineer for the important bits, and don't try anything off the wall, then you can't go wrong.

Maybe the reason we have building designers is down to the attitude in Stinky's post. Maybe they're filling a gap being left by the university-trained professionals who are looking to bigger and better things. Let them design skyscrapers and cliff-top birdhouses for the baby boomers and the rest of us ordinary mortals can get on with building our timber-framed, truss-roofed common or garden variety cottages.

I reckon there are 3 problems with architecture.

1 design without cost knowledge given to the client. this takes the form of say a cantilevered section with glazing below to give a 'floating effect' - I have seen designs like that with all the related massively complex structure that goes to support it, that easily added $100k to the job on its own, when for instance, a polished ss post could have been placed, looked the business and saved 95k - sometime during the build, the builder informs the client of how much that little detail cost, and the client is belatedly upset! Also so much cash is wasted on trifling things like specifying $1500 toilets, $400 towel rails and the like.

2 Boring architecture. The number of bog std looking buildings been designed by archtects is astounding. Pawnheads list of piccies above with work designed by architects should be an exciting series of piccies, but it could easily be out of country monthly, or "Conservative Housing".


3 Clients. clients too scared and lacking self confidence to such a degree, that they want a house that will "blend in " with their neighbours. This drives 2 above as well.

The 3 above create the nexus that we have that project homes can build for $600 a sqm, but architects seem to need $2000 and up / sqm. Its hard to see a 40sq house for $800k and see a bargain when it can be done for $200k by McDonald Jones or whoever. So we have a picture in the minds of the public that architecture means $1500 toilets, $150pm tiles and $3000 wall ovens rather than architecure meaning good design and modern design - well lit space, liveable rooms etc.

Architecture needs to be rescued from the well healed and tasteless and applied to the general quality of building in this country.....

There are too many over-generalisations here to reply to. So I will just add a comment or two and you can take these for what they appear to be worth to you.

Firstly, we should not be pointing fingers at individuals, whether they be architects or designers. There will always be good guys and bad guys in every pile. A qualification does not immunize you against bad service. We should instead focus on the professions as a group, and what they have to offer by way of their training.

The thing about training is that it provides a mind set. This is not always something that one developes without specific training. Of course it is possible to do so, but I am not referring to some exceptional individuals. At the same time, I accept that some individuals just do not get "it" even when "trained".

The mind set I am referring to is the ability to think in a way that produces solutions. The abillity to get into the issue and grasp the problem, and "see" the options and alternatives. We call this "creativity".

Every professional goes through a training that encourages the development of different skills/ways of looking at a problem. I expect that an architect and a designer or draftsman will come at a solution from a different perspective, one that reflects their experiences in training and life.

At the end of the day, whoever you choose, it should be the client who makes his/her needs known to the archiect/designer/draftsman. It is up to them to interpret these criteria.

Do your homework and decide for yourself if the person you have selected is versed in doing the work you visualise.

Regards from Perth

Derek

Thinking back over the years the thing that I have found affects my attitude towards each individual architect that I have been involved with has been the way they treat the relationships with the builder. The ones I remember fondly have seen us as professionals in our own right and tried to work with us rather than see us as naughty boys trying to cut every corner and pull the wool over their eyes. I know that there are some dodgy builders out there maybe even a lot but there are also many of us that take pride in our work. The them and us attitude that has developed helps no one.

The abillity to get into the issue and grasp the problem, and "see" the options and alternatives. We call this "creativity".

This is the crux of the issue. House building is so well understood and established that it's not necessary to re-invent the wheel every day of the week. The only time you need any special level of creativity is when you are asked to design something out of the ordinary. The standard house of the kind that is built every day of the week has a set of known and well understood problems that have known and well understood solutions. You don't necessarily need to pay someone to solve them from basic principles. In the majority of cases, the person who would know most about the problems and the solutions would be the builder, not the designer or architect.

It's no different to my game. We have jobs that are run of the mill. We wheel out the standard modules and stitch them together to deliver what the client wants. Every now and then, someone comes along with something that we've never done before, so you're in new territory and you have to use your noggin, not to apply what you already know, but to create from scratch. No prizes for guessing which costs more and which tasks are allocated to the university graduates and which to the experienced hands.

When is bitingmidge back from his holiday? He'd love this one

Originally Posted by silentC

This is the crux of the issue. House building is so well understood and established that it's not necessary to re-invent the wheel every day of the week. The only time you need any special level of creativity is when you are asked to design something out of the ordinary.

Why would anyone want ordinary! The creativity of an architect is not resolving design issues it coming up with the design in the first place.

We all live in boxes that are divided up into spaces that mostly conform to a set ratio. Anyone with a bit of experience can draw a box and call it a house and if that box satisfies you great ..go for it.

If however you want your house to reflect your lifestyles, your taste and philosophy of art, nature and your interaction between these things then you look to a professional that has studied these esoteric variables and understands how to develop these into reality. Someone who can not only design something that fufills your brief but who can do in a way that is sympathetic to the site and its surrounds.

Not all architects are good and as with any profession you will have bad experiences (this is the same as with draftsman and building designers)

Sorry Silent, it is vital that we reinvent the wheel with every design as this defines us as human - create art mate not excrement!


(I'm not saying you live in a shytty box either!)

Like I said, arty farty tossers! This is where we diverge from reality and head into la la land. A house is not art! It's a box to live in and protect your stuff from the elements!

Yes, all very well in affluent Sydney, but down here in the country mate, we don't care about philosophy of art or whatever, we just want a nice looking house, that looks like a house, and has a roof and room for a beer fridge. Some of the monstrosities that the baby boomers are building here are hideous - but because they're architect designed, we must all have our heads up our rears if we can't see them for the esoteric manifestations of the owner's personality that they are. In fact, that's exactly what they are. That's why I hate them, because I have no time for the people who live in them!

Originally Posted by silentC

A house is not art! It's a box to live in and protect your stuff from the elements!!

That's the philosophy of the post modernist to a tee! you may feel that your tastes are simple as you have turned your back on the complexity of social integration by hiding in the perceived simplicity of country life, however what you have not realised Silent, is that by choosing to live in a "Shytte Box" you have in fact embraced the post modernist ethos which of course makes you an intellectual wanker of the highest order.

Damn!!

OK, I wish I lived perched on the edge of a south coast cliff in a concrete and corrugated iron birdcage designed by a man called Nigel who wears a black skivvy, uses scented aftershave and owns a Maltese terrier called Verdell. Is that better?

Ahh now you have grasped the concept.

But after the inital concept the Engineer come along and moves the house away from the edge, replaces the iron with stainless steel, changes the birdcage shape into a dome and completely redesigns the rest of the structure.

Then the architect bills his clients to change his plans and then owner gets a quotes from builders and end up scrapping the architects ideas and get a draftsman to draw up some plans that are a bit more realistic and feasible money wise.

And the client insists on remodelling the facade to recreate a villa that she once spent a week in in Tuscany, and rethinks the colour scheme that took two weeks of negotiation to settle on.

By this time Nigel has thrown a Hissy fit and left it up to the builder to work out whats going on!