Architect Fees

[garrymartin]

12 minutes ago, Mr Blobby said:

Architects just can't help it.  It's not their money so they will design in all sorts of unecessary crap.

 

Not all architects.

 

I feel at this juncture I should point out I am not an architect and I have no friends or colleagues who are architects, but they do seem to be getting a bit of a bashing 🤣 Having worked my whole life in IT Consultancy and IT Managed Services though, I see parallels though.

 

Make sure that "value engineering" is a thread running throughout the work of any architect you engage, that your design brief is clear, and that there is clear agreement about your budget, your requirements, and areas where you are prepared to be flexible.

 

For example, one of our golden rules is that we're happy to pay a little more for something up front where whole-life running costs and future maintenance are significantly reduced.

 

If your architect designs something that doesn't objectively meet your stated and agreed requirements and is not achievable within your budget, then don't pay them. They've failed to deliver what you contracted them to.

[garrymartin]

4 minutes ago, mjc55 said:

 

Hmm.  Are you saying that from experience?  Not sure I agree.  However I would probably struggle to justify me saying that so it's difficult isn't it.

Only from my limited experience of all the quotes I received from architects and my research into how architects charge, what for, and how to get the best from your engagement with them (i.e. how to be a good client).

 

All my quotes were a stated charge per RIBA stage - none of them came back as percentage fees.

 

[Dave Jones]

24 minutes ago, garrymartin said:

 

Not all architects.

 

I feel at this juncture I should point out I am not an architect and I have no friends or colleagues who are architects, but they do seem to be getting a bit of a bashing 🤣 Having worked my whole life in IT Consultancy and IT Managed Services though, I see parallels though.

 

Make sure that "value engineering" is a thread running throughout the work of any architect you engage, that your design brief is clear, and that there is clear agreement about your budget, your requirements, and areas where you are prepared to be flexible.

 

For example, one of our golden rules is that we're happy to pay a little more for something up front where whole-life running costs and future maintenance are significantly reduced.

 

If your architect designs something that doesn't objectively meet your stated and agreed requirements and is not achievable within your budget, then don't pay them. They've failed to deliver what you contracted them to.

 

 

the value an architect provides is the design. that's it. 

 

Everything else is ancillary which anyone can do.

[Mr Blobby]

1 hour ago, garrymartin said:

Make sure that "value engineering" is a thread running throughout the work of any architect you engage

 

This is great in theory but in practice architects don't give a hoot about value engineering.  During the design stage I asked my architect about costs and he flat out refused to comment and told me to appoint a QS to cost the project.  Which is completely unhelpful.

 

If I was building a house again I would get the SE and builder involved far earlier, to do a proper sanity check over the plans, and rely far less on the architect.

 

 

Edited September 3 by Mr Blobby

[mjc55]

10 minutes ago, Mr Blobby said:

 

This is great in theory but in practice architects don't give a hoot about value engineering.  During the design stage I asked my architect about costs and he flat out refused to comment and told me to appoint a QS to cost the project.  Which is completely unhelpful.

 

If I was building a house again I would get the SE and builder involved far earlier, and rely far less on the architect.

 

 

 

It's funny isn't it.  I suspect architects tend to fall into one of two distinct groups, those that are not particularly interested in cost and those that are.

 

When I did my AT degree at UWE we spent the first year with the Architecture undergrads, we were basically doing the same modules.  After that we were split up and I think that it was noticeable that the thrust of their course was in a different direction.  This was much more noticeable in the Part II and III Architecture courses which, it seemed to me, were much more removed from the practical.  I did tend to refer to them as ARTitects I have to admit.

 

This, of course, does not mean that they did not know what they were doing, more that the general direction of travel was away from the practical towards the artistic.  Now of course I am not try to say that all architects are like this, however I think that one has to be careful when choosing the professional that is in essence in control of the whole design process.

[garrymartin]

I feel like I'm in the minority here with regard to the value an architect can and should bring to a project. It sounds like a lot of you have had bad experiences which is a shame. I hope to be able to report a more positive experience should I ever get planning approved!

[zzPaulzz]

@garrymartin I'm still using mine for Stage 4. For sure they aren't cheap, but I'd be a hypocrite if I refused to pay for expert advice considering that's how I make my living (also in technology).  I know enough about building houses to know I don't know enough...  

[garrymartin]

5 minutes ago, zzPaulzz said:

@garrymartin I'm still using mine for Stage 4. For sure they aren't cheap, but I'd be a hypocrite if I refused to pay for expert advice considering that's how I make my living (also in technology).  I know enough about building houses to know I don't know enough...  

In my head, based on our potential build route (timberframe package), I'm not sure I'd get a huge amount of value from continuing to Stage 4 with the architects. I can clearly see the value for Stage 0-2 and Stage 3 (which is how the work packages are split) but after that I'm not so sure.

 

[Benpointer]

5 minutes ago, garrymartin said:

In my head, based on our potential build route (timberframe package), I'm not sure I'd get a huge amount of value from continuing to Stage 4 with the architects. I can clearly see the value for Stage 0-2 and Stage 3 (which is how the work packages are split) but after that I'm not so sure.

 

So will you get your chosen TF company to create the drawings and submissions for Building Regs?

[garrymartin]

2 minutes ago, Benpointer said:

So will you get your chosen TF company to create the drawings and submissions for Building Regs?

I've not spoken directly to anyone other than MBC at this point, but in their case, they don't do that work so I would need someone else to do it. Doesn't have to be my architect though - an architectural technician would probably be sufficient and significantly cheaper. This is the area where I'm not sure my architect could add additional value that would justify the cost differential.

 

I should say that I intend for various specialists (mechanical, electrical, ecological, landscape, etc.) to be involved through Stages 0-4 and they may continue through further stages where I'll likely add to their expertise (SE for example).

[zzPaulzz]

11 minutes ago, garrymartin said:

In my head, based on our potential build route (timberframe package), I'm not sure I'd get a huge amount of value from continuing to Stage 4 with the architects. I can clearly see the value for Stage 0-2 and Stage 3 (which is how the work packages are split) but after that I'm not so sure.

 

I hear you. The two TF companies I'm considering won't do the building regs design. I'm still hesitating though.  Is £8.5k plus VAT good value for this lot?

RIBA Stage 4 - Technical Design

1. Production of Building Regulation Compliant Drawings & Notes.
2. GA Floor Plans - 1:50 (Below Ground, Ground Floor, First Floor & Roof); GA Elevations - 1:50;
3. GA Sections - 1:50;
4. Building Details - 1:10/1:5;
5. Site Plan - 1:100;
6. Building Regulation Notes;
7. Additional construction details; &
8. Electrical layouts (based on clients specification).
9. Planning conditions submission, including liaising with external consultants
10. Co-ordination with Structural Engineer and other consultants (Civils, Ecologist, Ecology Lighting Consultant & Party Wall etc)
11. Preparing, monitoring & submitting Building Regulation Application.
12. Preparing, submitting & monitoring Discharge of Condition Applications at various stages.

[garrymartin]

3 minutes ago, zzPaulzz said:

I'm still hesitating though.  Is £8.5k plus VAT good value for this lot?

I don't have any quotes for the BR work, but my quote from my preferred architects for Stage 4 is more than that 🤯 That's why I'm struggling to see the value in this Stage.

 

Having said that, the work they expect to complete as part of Stage 4 is more than just the BR plans and submission; it includes putting together the building specification to a level of detail that would "enable a competent contractor to price and build from". Obviously, given the route I'm proposing to take, that wouldn't necessarily be required...

[Alan Ambrose]

I'm a bit surprised when people talk about 'building regs design' as though is just another paperwork hurdle. To my mind, that's where the real meat of the design is and where the quality is added - post the architect's overall look-and-feel for planning, which is of course important.

[mjc55]

2 minutes ago, Alan Ambrose said:

I'm a bit surprised when people talk about 'building regs design' as though is just another paperwork hurdle. To my mind, that's where the real meat of the design is and where the quality is added - post the architect's overall look-and-feel for planning, which is of course important.

 

Absolutely agree.

 

Of course there is merit in the design principle, but in my mind the technical design is a completely different and more onerous task.

[Dave Jones]

On 03/09/2024 at 17:02, zzPaulzz said:

  I know enough about building houses to know I don't know enough...  

 

you'll be in good company with architects then.

 

Big difference between theory and practice.