architect vs. architectural designers

[TryC]

Hey All,

 

So I thought I had a quote from an architect for a rear-end extension, but upon further research, it turns out they are architectural designers. (I was given their details which was recommended when asked about architects).

 

Is it OK to use architectural designers or is it best to engage with an architect?

[George]

Is that how they describe themselves?

 

An Architect is a protected title, and the other common professional is an Architectural Technologist. 

 

Architectural Designer is not something I recognise. However, construction is pretty unregulated when it comes to design - if you can be assured of their insurance and competence then you could use them.

 

 

[TryC]

22 minutes ago, George said:

Is that how they describe themselves?

 

An Architect is a protected title, and the other common professional is an Architectural Technologist. 

 

Architectural Designer is not something I recognise. However, construction is pretty unregulated when it comes to design - if you can be assured of their insurance and competence then you could use them.

 

 

yes, on their email signature. 

 

I'd never heard of it until I saw it. On their LinkedIn they describe themselves as a Draughtsman as well.

 

I checked on the ARB, they're definitely not architects.

 

How can I ask for their insurance and certification of competence without offending them?

[Adsibob]

5 minutes ago, TryC said:

How can I ask for their insurance and certification of competence without offending them?

There is no such thing as a certification of competence. You should just ask to see their insurance cover, and whilst you are at at you might as well ask about the difference between an architect and an architectural designer, and see what they say. If they have insurance, they obviously have nothing to hide and can show you all of their insurance documents. If they don’t want to show you, then you have your answer: don’t touch with a barge pole.

[TryC]

1 minute ago, Adsibob said:

There is no such thing as a certification of competence. You should just ask to see their insurance cover, and whilst you are at at you might as well ask about the difference between an architect and an architectural designer, and see what they say. If they have insurance, they obviously have nothing to hide and can show you all of their insurance documents. If they don’t want to show you, then you have your answer: don’t touch with a barge pole.

thank you! 

 

is that a standard question they expect to be asked? that if I ask about insurance,  they won't be offended?

[Adsibob]

1 minute ago, TryC said:

thank you! 

 

is that a standard question they expect to be asked? that if I ask about insurance,  they won't be offended?

If they get offended when you ask about insurance, they are insecure idiots. And if you are too uncomfortable to ask, then self build is not for you. You are considering hiring them to design your house. If they c**k it up, do you want them to be insured, or would you rather have avoided offending them?

 

[TryC]

what do you mean by 'self-build'? 

 

wouldn't they just say it is for the builders to be insured? sorry, I'm not overly familiar with this at all 😞

 

do I need to ask if they are insured in case they mess up on the designs that the builders build, based offa their drawings?

[George]

37 minutes ago, TryC said:

yes, on their email signature. 

 

I'd never heard of it until I saw it. On their LinkedIn they describe themselves as a Draughtsman as well.

 

I checked on the ARB, they're definitely not architects.

 

How can I ask for their insurance and certification of competence without offending them?

 

Just say your house insurance company has asked for it. I occasionally get asked about my insurance (as a structural engineer) and I include details of my Professional Indemnity insurance in my T&Cs. I'm not offended - I'm designing something that affects what is most people's most valuable asset.

 

Competence is via referrals, reviews, seeing examples of their work and so on. 

Edited November 28, 2022 by George

[TryC]

10 minutes ago, George said:

 

Just say your house insurance company has asked for it. I occasionally get asked about my insurance (as a structural engineer) and I include details of my Professional Indemnity insurance in my T&Cs. I'm not offended - I'm designing something that affects what is most people's most valuable asset.

 

Competence is via referrals, reviews, seeing examples of their work and so on. 

thanks, George!

 

should I also ask this of my structural engineer,  who provided drawings before I decided to go for an extension instead (initially we wanted just a load bearing wall removed)

[SteamyTea]

@Adsibob

When I was lecturing, the university decided to check all the lecturers' certificates.

Was interesting who left before the deadline. One law lecturer, who was also working as a JP had no relevant qualifications at all. They took her to court I believe. Another, who claimed to have a Doctorate, and in his words, 'I don't need a PGCE' happened to have the same name as someone that had genuinely done their doctorate though the university. He left before the deadline. All his students knew he was a fraud.

 

It is a shame that there is not a central database where qualifications cannot be easily verified, same with professional insurance. 

May stop the term 'engineer' being miss used.

[Moonshine]

35 minutes ago, SteamyTea said:

 

May stop the term 'engineer' being miss used.

 

But I enjoy my role as caffeine engineer. I wonder if I can get a CEng for it.

[SteamyTea]

Just now, Moonshine said:

caffeine engineer

I was just getting a coffee and was discussing the new coffee machine with the staff.

It cost £35,000 WTF.

Not as if they are sophisticated, Italians make them.

[ProDave]

2 minutes ago, Moonshine said:

 

But I enjoy my role as caffeine engineer. I wonder if I can get a CEng for it.

Are you sure you are not a Barista?

[MJNewton]

2 hours ago, TryC said:

Is it OK to use architectural designers or is it best to engage with an architect?

 

How complex is the existing building and proposed extension?

 

If fairly run of the mill then I wouldn't want to be paying (extra) for an 'Architect' - I'd be more than happy for an Architectural Technician (which is the title I am most familiar with, but which is presumably synonymous with 'Architectural Technologist' that George mentioned). Aside from being cheaper they might also be a bit more down to earth (no offence intended to any resident architects!).

Edited November 28, 2022 by MJNewton

[nod]

You will need a Structual engineer 

He will be cheaper and do the whole 

Architecht tend to design without much thought about how practical it is to build 

Most on here can look at there drawings by the Architect 

saying Foundations to SE design 

Same with floors same with roof 

A SE will do your design with details of how to build it 

[Moonshine]

1 hour ago, ProDave said:

Are you sure you are not a Barista?

 

Some days sure feel like it.

[ETC]

54 minutes ago, nod said:

You will need a Structual engineer 

He will be cheaper and do the whole 

Architecht tend to design without much thought about how practical it is to build 

Most on here can look at there drawings by the Architect 

saying Foundations to SE design 

Same with floors same with roof 

A SE will do your design with details of how to build it 

I’m not convinced that an engineer will be cheaper or that an architect will not think about how something is built - a bit of a generalisation.

 

A good architect will design you what you want, that is within your budget, that is simple to construct and that should look good and work properly.

[nod]

13 minutes ago, ETC said:

I’m not convinced that an engineer will be cheaper or that an architect will not think about how something is built - a bit of a generalisation.

 

A good architect will design you what you want, that is within your budget, that is simple to construct and that should look good and work properly.

My experience over the years with Architect's is most are not practical and good at spending your money 

You can get by without an Architect 

But not a SE 

[Gus Potter]

4 hours ago, TryC said:

Is it OK to use architectural designers or is it best to engage with an architect?

 

3 hours ago, George said:

I occasionally get asked about my insurance (as a structural engineer) and I include details of my Professional Indemnity insurance in my T&Cs. I'm not offended

Top response from @George

 

Agree.

 

5 hours ago, TryC said:

Is it OK to use architectural designers or is it best to engage with an architect?

Will do no harm to ask.

 

To provide a bit of background.

 

I started out as a building contractor, got interested in structural design so went to uni at forty to study structural engineering. Served my time training and now work as a sole pratitioner as a Structural Engineer and architectural designer.

 

To be a good designer you need to have experience and a flavour of holistic desgn.

 

I make a living doing what I do. Designing extensions, attic conversions, barn conversion, some steel buildings, some industrial, the odd new build,  bit of ground works, garden buildings.. long list... it's a fun job but with responsibility... no free lunch.

 

Now I think I do a good job.. but I do get some jobs that require the flair that only an Architect can bring. When this occurs I call up my Architect pals and say.. this job needs YOU do you want to collaborate? It is the sensible thing to do for me. I'm not a bad arctitectural designer but I know my limits. I know from years of experience when to call for help.. swallow your pride and this delivers a good project.. you learn from it and this makes you a better designer.

 

That said I make my living wearing the two hats.. it is a competetive business this building malarky!

 

In terms of insurance. From talking to my Architect pals I carry a lot more PI insurance cover under my SE policy than they do... in fact significantly more and as @George says I'm quite happy to provide the documents if asked. But.. I don't make a point of it when touting for business.. after all you are saying to your Client.. hey if I cock it up I'm well insured.. the point is you DON'T cock it up! My SE cover also covers me to do the architectural design and spout my thoughts on BH.

 

In summary though for all on BH. The best thing you can do is research.

 

Some folk on BH have loads of experience, know what they want and just want someone to produce the paperwork to get BC approval and check it won't fall down. Others are just starting out and maybe need someone who can guide them.. hold their hand while they cut their teeth on their first project.

 

Yes it is ok to use an architectural designer @TryCbut make sure you do your due dilligance.. take references from past Clients and so on. Try and find someone local to you that can nip round once the project is underway and check on the builder.

 

The main thing it to find the person that suits you and you gell with. Then explore what they know and what they can do for you. If you have put in a bit of ground work you'll soon know if they are up to the job or not.

 

All the best with the project.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

[George]

3 hours ago, MJNewton said:

 

How complex is the existing building and proposed extension?

 

If fairly run of the mill then I wouldn't want to be paying (extra) for an 'Architect' - I'd be more than happy for an Architectural Technician (which is the title I am most familiar with, but which is presumably synonymous with 'Architectural Technologist' that George mentioned). Aside from being cheaper they might also be a bit more down to earth (no offence intended to any resident architects!).

An Architectural Technician will be someone who mainly does drafting work - nothing wrong with that and technicians can be the person spot on for a small extension job.

 

An Architectural Technologist is someone who gets a building to meet building regulations, design details and worries about thermal bridges way, waaay too much. They are on a par with an Architect in importance but are concerned with making the building function from a technical point of view rather than from a space and design point of view. 

 

At domestic scale an architect or an architectural technologist is equally 'good'. (For large commercial buildings you'd expect to have at least one of each, plus the civil, structural, mechanical and electrical engineers.)

 

Edited November 28, 2022 by George

[Adsibob]

34 minutes ago, Gus Potter said:

In terms of insurance. From talking to my Architect pals I carry a lot more PI insurance cover under my SE policy than they do...

That’s because if you cock up, a structure will fail/fall down. If an architect cocks up, generally the house will look ugly or let water in, so not as catastrophic.

[Gus Potter]

11 hours ago, George said:

At domestic scale an architect or an architectural technologist is equally 'good'.

My own view is that much depends on experience, knowledge and demonstrable skill.

 

I have worked with some SE's that I would not let within a country mile of my own house!

 

I work with an Architect that has been at it for 50 years.. he designs stuff and I say to him why do you need me? .. he says.. for the SE paper work young lad!

 

Then you have all ground in between.

 

I think the secret it to work out what you need and find someone that can do what you want and have experience to say.. hang on.. here is a bit of friendly advise, I'm invested in your project.. let's not drop a clanger.

[Gus Potter]

4 minutes ago, Adsibob said:

That’s because if you cock up, a structure will fail/fall down. If an architect cocks up, generally the house will look ugly or let water in, so not as catastrophic.

You have hit the nail on the head there.

 

If you are an SE you are responsible for folks lives.. if some goes badly wrong you could kill a lot of folk.

 

@saveasteading If you are a Civil Engineer and your dam fails falls down you could kill thousands.

 

Yes you carry responsibility.. and it can keep you awake at night to say the least.

 

That said there are a lot of checks and balances. The very first thing you do is to ask yourself "does it look right" if not it is probably wrong.. that takes experience.

 

If you are on BH and asking a question as it may not look right to you.. then on balance you are probably right.. I encourage everyone to ask. Sometimes the question from the "lay person" is vital as professionals can get locked into a way of thinking and.. subject to "commercial pressure"..

 

That simple question could save the day!  That is part of the checking and balancing process. There are many more so if you have a good design team (that includes you) there is no reason to loose sleep.

 

So to all on BH.. keep asking questions!

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

[ETC]

2 hours ago, nod said:

My experience over the years with Architect's is most are not practical and good at spending your money 

You can get by without an Architect 

But not a SE 

It’s a pity really that your experience has tarnished your view of architects. Were they registered or just posing as architects?

 

My own opinion is that - yes there are some very bad architects out there but equally there are some bad architectural designers who not only cannot draw a straight line with a ruler but often dupe their clients into believing that they are architects when they are not.

 

There also some very good architects and architectural designers out there who will deliver a project to their client’s requirements and within a budget. You just need to do your research and due diligence.

 

I’m fed up to the back teeth with the stereotypical view of architects as Del Boy and Arfur Daley types who turn up to meet their clients in a sheep-skin coat smoking a cigar in a second hand Jag. Give us a break. As an architect - yes - a real one - I frequently meet people who tell me that their “architect” can do a brilliant job for next to nothing. Turns out the drawing is on the back of a fag packet and couldn’t be built in a month of Sundays - but - and here’s the but - “it only cost me £300”. Money talks and your average Joe Blogs would rather spend a couple of grand on a new TV than pay for a proper professional service.

 

By his own admission the SE above brings in an architect for “the flair”. I really despair when design is seen as something that is bolted on. It should be part of the process. And to say that an architect and an architectural technologist are “equally good” is just ludicrous - a good architect will save you money by designing a project that not only has “the flair” built in but is an asset not to mention the years of training an architect does compared to a couple of years for a technologist.

 

And if only an architect’s PI Insurance was to protect an architect from a building being “too ugly” or letting water in the profession wouldn’t need to carry an PII at all. 
 

I think many posters on this forum need to educate themselves on what an architect is and what an architectural technologist is and what jobs they do and what roles they play in the construction process.

[ETC]

1 hour ago, Adsibob said:

That’s because if you cock up, a structure will fail/fall down. If an architect cocks up, generally the house will look ugly or let water in, so not as catastrophic.

Rubbish!!!!