Thinking about ditching our 'Architect'

[CADjockey]

Hi,

 

So a little background as I'm fresh on here...

 

Decided we would knock down our house and build from scratch (As you do!).

 

So we spent some time trawling the planning portal looking at local builds that had been approved and the state of the drawings etc.

The theory being that someone who had experience and success with the local planning office might be at least a starting point and 

the the quality of the drawings (I know a fair bit about CAD) might also be a plus.

 

We prepared a starter pack that included my initial concepts & sketches, bubble diagrams of how the rooms should ideally link, some 

mood board images of what we kind of liked, a list of wants in an ideal world &ct.. &ct..

 

Met and engaged an 'Architect' who it turns out is an Architectural Technologist or whatever, but didn't highlight the fact or difference

to us. And not that we are snobby about that kind of thing, but just saying! Gave him the pack as a starting point.

 

So other than the evolution of the layout, the First draft was incomplete as a design, no garage block and several fundamentally missing rooms.

Second draft still missing a garage block and a topological survey still outstanding, which given the 1m drop over the length of the footprint

we felt was required to continue.

Bear in mind that by this point I'd completely modelled it all up in SketchUp to review in 3D and push to VR (Well you may as well engage 

the technology at hand given what you are potentially going to spend!). And I'd sent 3D images of changes and ideas back to him

in detail after some discussions with my wife more than once.

Third draft garage still not correct or to envisaged scheme sent to him.

 

Now the crux of the matter is that though it's basically done, we are, neither of us whooping with joy at the current plan. It's a house/location we 

want to stay in for 20 years+. Are we expecting too much to be excited, to feel our designer gets us and how we want to live? Is it time to find another 

'Architect', cut our losses and start over. It's undoubtedly better to write off £2-3k than commit hundreds of thousands on what's just not right.

 

I'd value some opinion...

Many thanks.

[jack]

Welcome to Buildhub!

 

You'll find that some on here are anti-architect to one extent or another. I personally think a good one is more than worth engaging.

 

We cut our losses with our first architect after three significant sets of revisions left us feeling no closer to an end result than the first draft. While there were some more objective factors, in the end we just weren't confident that what they were designing for us was what we wanted to live in.

 

After months of working with the first architect, we politely (no bridges burned) disengaged, swallowed the not-inconsiderable costs to that stage, and then started again with someone who "got" us a lot better. The house we built, while not perfect (as you learn when you live in something), is very close to the original draft the new architect presented. 

 

I think you already know the answer to the questions in your final paragraph. Be brave - you should be excited at this point. Building a house is hugely expensive and stressful, and you want to get it absolutely right. £2-3k and an uncomfortable conversation are a small price to pay for getting the house you want in the end.

[bassanclan]

Do you know the design you want and basically want someone to formalise it?

 

Or are you looking for the architect to come up with an excellent idea etc which he currently has not?

[Jeremy Harris]

Welcome.

 

My experience with several architects (not architectural technicians) that we originally approached wasn't very positive; the main issue seemed to be that none of them really took on board our essential requirements, but instead tried to push us towards what they wanted to design.  The really big issue was that none seemed to have a clue about low energy design, which was a serious concern for us.

 

I'd done much like you, and drawn up sketch plans in AutoCad, overlaid on a topo survey that was provided as a DXF file, so making the task of setting the house design in the context of the plot a lot simpler.  In the end, I decided to just design the house myself and submit the planning and building control drawings myself.  The only two areas that involved me in learning something new were reading up on all the building regulations and trying to learn to be artistic. 

 

Learning the building regs wasn't hard, as in reality there isn't a great deal that impacts the design; primarily fire escape provision (which impacts internal room layout) and disabled access (which impacts things like where the entrance floor WC is and how the route from the car parking area to that WC runs).  The hard part for me was trying to add a bit of design flair to the house, as I'm just not at all artistic.  I think we went through about 6 different designs before we settled on one we both liked, and I made scale models of most of them to get a better idea as to how they might look.

 

Overall I found that not using an architect, or architectural technician, wasn't a problem at all.  Our planning application went through fairly easily, and we're in a challenging spot, being inside a conservation area, inside an area of outstanding natural beauty and opposite a grade II listed building, so we had a lot of planning policy constraints.  The biggest downside to the DIY approach is really the time it takes to acquire the necessary knowledge, rather than the time it takes to actually produce the drawings.  I had no experience of house design, but had been using AutoCad for decades, so I knew how to produce drawings, just not drawings of houses.

 

If you have the ability to produce drawings, then you could have a go at doing it yourself.  At least that way you end up with exactly what you want, rather than something someone thinks you want.

[joe90]

I too, am not impressed with architects, they want you to build what they want, not what you want. I designed our house completely but got an architect to do the CAD drawings ( I still use pencils !) and interpret up to date building regs. Despite this our architect still got a lot wrong and we had to go back several times and repeat what we wanted. I now wish we used an architectural technician as there was no  “ flair” or “ artistic input” required.

[lizzie]

We ditched the original architect too.  You need someone you can work with to realise your vision, someone with empathy.....and someone to gently pull you back to what is sensible and practical and able to be built without costing an arm and a leg whilst retaining your ethos.

[Jml]

Having had problems with architects in the past, if you know what you want and have gone as far as 3d design, why not apply for planning yourself, if you have the time.  The drawing required are not difficult and do not require a lot of detail.  

 

We have put in two applications for our current bungalow, both for extensions, one of 300m 2  which we designed and submitted ourselves.   Whilst our first attempt was declined due to too large a gable, once this was revised both applications were passed. 

 

I would say that whilst we knew exactly what we wanted on the inside with regard to layout etc. the external appearance is where perhaps an architect could have helped, certainly in our case.  

 

Further, getting someone to do building regulation drawings when they have not designed the extension is proving difficult.  I am attempting them myself, but the drainage etc. Is proving difficult as we are building over a mains sewer, but that is another story.

[jack]

17 minutes ago, JSHarris said:

At least that way you end up with exactly what you want, rather than something someone thinks you want.

 

I agree with most of what you say, but at least for some people, doing it this way won't give them the results they want, because they simply aren't capable of thinking like someone who does this for a living.  

 

I wasn't able to design something that was what we wanted while meeting the limitations of our awkwardly shaped block. I spent many hours trying, but it was so remote from my skills and experience that I just didn't have the mental tools to do it. The architect's first draft was quite different to any of the many high-level plans I'd tried, and it clicked with us first time.

 

YMMV, of course.

[Jeremy Harris]

@jack, I agree, the DIY approach certainly isn't for everyone, or for every plot, either, and I definitely think that a good architect can add design flair, especially to the exterior.  I found that aspect far and away the hardest to get to grips with, and even harder was trying to work out why the initial designs we came up with just didn't look quite right.  I'm sure a good architect would have resolved this aspect easily, and probably produced a better looking exterior than we ended up with.

 

To qualify my earlier comments, I should add that since building this house I have met a very capable architect who I wouldn't have hesitated to use had I know of her when we were first looking around.  We approached four local architectural practices, had initial short meetings with each, and gave each the same detailed brief, but were disappointed with them all.  Perhaps if I'd had more patience, and cast our net a little wider, I may have found an architect we could have worked with, I just don't know. 

 

 

[Mr Punter]

It sounds like you have reached the end of the road with this person.  I favour getting an architect to work the design up to planning consent stage and using a different firm for building regs.  Make sure when you appoint that that is the understanding and they will hand over the CAD files.

 

Needless to say you may need to do a bit more research / look at the designs, planning success rates etc before you choose next time.

[ultramods]

2 minutes ago, Mr Punter said:

It sounds like you have reached the end of the road with this person.  I favour getting an architect to work the design up to planning consent stage and using a different firm for building regs.  Make sure when you appoint that that is the understanding and they will hand over the CAD files.

 

Needless to say you may need to do a bit more research / look at the designs, planning success rates etc before you choose next time.

With hindsight I would recommend this approach.

 

Spend a lot of time researching architects (websites, social media accounts and previous planning submissions) to find a one that designs houses similar to what you have in your mind.

[CADjockey]

Thanks for all your initial responses, I get the feeling that an Architect should give you blue sky thinking and an Architectural Technician 

maybe more nuts and bolts, but neither are exclusively true. I kind of feel that there can't be so many opportunities to design a house from

scratch given that the total number of self builds was only about 10k last year of national built stock from what I've read, and on that basis

I expected more from our designer in enthusiasm alone. 

 

Maybe I also should have cast a little wider, but, I was focused on local knowledge of the planning dept and better drawings to get the design over.

I'm painfully aware that not everyone can envision a 2D drawing.

 

Although we gave him a starter for ten, we were not overly prescriptive on layout or style, even if our 'mood boards' were of a style.

 

I think as we went along It seemed more apparent that he knows what he knows but is a bit out of his depth in some aspects. Didn't want

to do a floating balcony because of thermal bridging (which is partially valid but there must be a solution),  didn't like the cellar not following

the profile of the ground floor (ok it would have required a bit more concrete) and when we suggested we might install ground source heat

recovery, he suggested air source (which from what I understand requires more to run at the time of year when you actually need it - I may be wrong!)

Oh and I forgot that he also suggested we could put in faux beams if we wanted (I figure if you do use an oak frame, then make it do the work, not 

that we ended up with an oak framed design or were specifically set on one.)

 

On the plus side, he did kind of hit on an exterior treatment that my wife and I could more of less agree on.

 

I thought telling the neighbours was going to be the first difficult point, I guess I was wrong. 

Any further comments welcome.

[jack]

8 minutes ago, CADjockey said:

I think as we went along It seemed more apparent that he knows what he knows but is a bit out of his depth in some aspects. Didn't want

to do a floating balcony because of thermal bridging (which is partially valid but there must be a solution)

 

He may have a point, this is hard/expensive to do properly. We're stuck with a cold bridge for our balconies that I missed on the construction drawings. You can provide a thermal break, but the products needed to achieve this aren't cheap, and you may need specialists to install them.

 

10 minutes ago, CADjockey said:

and when we suggested we might install ground source heat recovery, he suggested air source (which from what I understand requires more to run at the time of year when you actually need it - I may be wrong!)

 

Again, he may have a point. Do some research about the capital and running cost differences between GSHPs and ASHPs. In most cases, ground source is much more expensive to install and maintain (make sure you include the cost of replacing and disposing of the fluid in the ground circuits for ground source every few years), especially for a well-insulated house.

 

 

[AliG]

I have used an architect that I have known for a long time.

 

He regularly makes the point that at the end of the day it is your house and he has to take on board what the client wants. I do not feel that this mindset has been taken on board by all architects.

 

I think he added a lot design wise to our house versus the more functional aspects that we set ourselves such as room sizes.

 

If I had to do it again I might have gone over a couple more revisions to the plans as some things are not quite how we envisioned them at the design stage. It is a lot easier to go over things again and again yourself than with someone else where you feel that you are wasting their time.

 

One thing I wish I had done was taken my design and asked for comments on here. I think doing this then going back to the architect would help.

 

If you do use an architect be very precise on what you want, for example we wanted a large en suite, but my wife's definition of large is a lot larger than the architects and this then required a lot of revision later. Funnily enough I had specified the sizes of pretty much every room, but didn't include bathrooms.

[SteamyTea]

There are a couple of architects on the forum.

Let's see if they comment.

[jack]

46 minutes ago, AliG said:

... but my wife's definition of large is a lot larger than the architects 

 

[Bitpipe]

Our architect came up with a design that was contemporary but also fitted into the street scene, met our aesthetic and delivered on the usability front also. We had a lot of input into the process but got a lot out of them also.

 

We got it through planning on the second attempt and their knowledge of local planning politics and ability to tactically draw on expertise (traffic engineering, planning consultants etc) was very useful and central to getting planning permission.

 

Would never have managed to get this far solo.

 

Thereafter however we parted company (on friendly terms) as they wanted a sizeable fee for the next stage  building regs / planning conditions / tendering etc.

 

As it was, we had a pause in proceedings while we decided on our build strategy and I stumbled into this forum's predecessor - learning about low energy builds etc and then going down the route of timber frame package builds.

 

This gave us the confidence to take on the second stage activities ourselves and proceed to project manage the build. Like Jack, while not perfect, we're pretty happy with the outcome.

 

I have friends in Ireland who were about to start work on approved designs, got cold feet and started again from scratch - never regretted it for a moment, despite the sunk cost.

 

Look at it this way, you've not entirely wasted the money you've spent so far as you've qualified a lot of issues but you may need to spend some more to get what you need.

 

Believe me, by the end of the build, architect fees will seem like a distant memory

[Hecateh]

6 hours ago, CADjockey said:

Is it time to find another 

'Architect', cut our losses and start over. It's undoubtedly better to write off £2-3k than commit hundreds of thousands on what's just not right.

 

I wasn't excited either.  I got fed up of changing things and her just ignoring my changes - no explanation until I asked and even then not satisfactory ones.  Other things she put in as requested, without any hint that although they were doable they would cost a fortune.

She too turned out to be a technician rather than an architect and I didn't find this out until after the event.

 

I wish I had ditched her the the first time she let me down, or the second or even straight after getting planning (at which time I wanted to but was too scared but I shouldn't have been and it would have saved me money but that's another sotry)

 

3 hours ago, Bitpipe said:

 

Believe me, by the end of the build, architect fees will seem like a distant memory 

 

It sure will.  Okay some of the 40% overspend was unavoidable but getting better advice earlier on would have definitely saved some and could have potentially saved a lot.  

 

To me it sounds like you have lost confidence and that can be more important than 'not being excited' although that is also important.

 

[CADjockey]

OK, so I just posted plans and images in the appropriate section for comment.

Maybe I'm just an idiot...