Steve Maskery
Established Member
Mike Garnham":d6lwjhwy said:
It's all right, Mike, I don't hold you personally responsible!
S
architect fees
- Thread starter joinerb
- Start date
Help Support UKworkshop.co.uk:
It's all right, Mike, I don't hold you personally responsible!
S
MikeG.
Established Member
PAC1":1cue22mz said:
No, no!!!
If you want a souless house designed by an engineer, then fine. But if you want something a bit special, or exploiting some aspect of your site, or with some structural interest, or with a bit of "you" in it, then you must see an architect!
Mike
My experience of Architects and structural engineers is that they always over engineer the pudding so to say.
I have a very good architect who is excellent but my building contractor always says ...you didn't need to do that, or that was a waste of money and time.
I am involved in a development at the moment and to avoid the NHBC buildmark guarantee fees, £2,500 approx. I opted for an architects certificate and agreed a fee of £500.
The contractor began digging the footings, all was in order standard depth etc, architect had a look in the trenches and wanted the footings a bit deeper. This was costly, more digging, more muck away, and more cement.
I suspect I have already lost most of my saving as a result of issues like this. I trust my architect, and his involvement keeps the contractors on their toes, (no short cuts).
Tony.
I have a very good architect who is excellent but my building contractor always says ...you didn't need to do that, or that was a waste of money and time.
I am involved in a development at the moment and to avoid the NHBC buildmark guarantee fees, £2,500 approx. I opted for an architects certificate and agreed a fee of £500.
The contractor began digging the footings, all was in order standard depth etc, architect had a look in the trenches and wanted the footings a bit deeper. This was costly, more digging, more muck away, and more cement.
I suspect I have already lost most of my saving as a result of issues like this. I trust my architect, and his involvement keeps the contractors on their toes, (no short cuts).
Tony.
BradNaylor
Established Member
- Joined
- 17 Oct 2007
- Messages
- 2,311
- Reaction score
- 2
I am currently working with a purveyor of architectural services on a large extension we are planning for our house. We have just agreed the final design and plans are to be submitted to the council next week. This is all within a month of him taking our first instructions.
It has been a painless and pleasant experience. I have continually tweaked and amended his ideas and he has cheerfully incorporated my alterations - no hissy fits at all!
http://www.heatondesignltd.com/
It perhaps helps that he is also a client of mine and I am in the middle of building him a kitchen!
:wink:
Cheers
Brad
It has been a painless and pleasant experience. I have continually tweaked and amended his ideas and he has cheerfully incorporated my alterations - no hissy fits at all!
http://www.heatondesignltd.com/
It perhaps helps that he is also a client of mine and I am in the middle of building him a kitchen!
:wink:
Cheers
Brad
adzeman
Established Member
I cant believe this thread on architects and a voice keeps shouting don't enter in to it! don't enter in to it!
This thread starts with Fees. over the last 20years I have negotiated all my fees. For the work I am doing at present this is about 7% of the value but it all depends on the job.
Without becoming emotional there are some fantastic Architects out there and there is some total rubbish. no mediocre. You must find your Architect. What you do with him when you find him is up to you.
This thread starts with Fees. over the last 20years I have negotiated all my fees. For the work I am doing at present this is about 7% of the value but it all depends on the job.
Without becoming emotional there are some fantastic Architects out there and there is some total rubbish. no mediocre. You must find your Architect. What you do with him when you find him is up to you.
Dibs-h
Established Member
Mike Garnham":3ok98yy2 said:
Thats's a little unfair Mike. In the real world - engineers do the designing as well as the rest. In just seems to be in this little contrived world that the design is done by people called Architects. :lol:
On a serious note - my plans were done by my Structural Engineer chum, but with the design entirely mine. I knew exactly what I wanted. Couldn't fault the service.
MikeG.
Established Member
Well, Dibs, you contradict your own argument!! You did the design.........your engineer only did the drawing.
The design is what I was talking about...........you can find plenty of people to draw (inc. engineers), but only a few who can design.
Mike
The design is what I was talking about...........you can find plenty of people to draw (inc. engineers), but only a few who can design.
Mike
Dibs-h
Established Member
Mike Garnham":3awhei0m said:
Yes - but I too have a BEng. :shock:
adzeman
Established Member
I agree with Mike Garnham. At school I always wanted to be an architect(worked at the local village joiners till I gained a place at college) after a the second year I was told I would not make it as architect. Kept failing design. The comment made was everything I designed looked like a top hat but, it will not leak. it will be energy efficient, structurally sound and it will last for ever.
I retrained as a surveyor. I can draw, supervise, cost, budget but still rubbish at design. Oh by the way the guy that sits opposite me he has a BSc in engineering and also makes the same comments as Dibs-H lovley guy though and we get on well.
I retrained as a surveyor. I can draw, supervise, cost, budget but still rubbish at design. Oh by the way the guy that sits opposite me he has a BSc in engineering and also makes the same comments as Dibs-H lovley guy though and we get on well.
Dibs-h
Established Member
adzeman":36xachyt said:
I know where you and Mike G are coming from - on the whole most Engineers are concerned with Function and haven't got a significant clue about Form. It took me a long time to break out of that "mould".
Mike G is right, even the chap who did my plans - had I not driven the design - it would have structurally been sound - but little else.
Want good design - see an architect, but ask around, like in every other trade in life - some will be awesome and some should be prevented from passing on their genes. :shock:
MikeG.
Established Member
Dibs-h":1q8l3iic said:
adzeman
Established Member
I like your reply Dibs-h and its good we can have a good natured banter. The problem I have is proportions, its something you are born with. A number of craftsman have it. You just have to look at some of the pictures on these forums.
I wonder what Newbie Joinerb thinks of these posts? he only asked about fees.
Can I throw in a wobbler? An observation I have made is first class tradesmen and in particular carpenters are self opinionated, as are first class architects. Is this why there are only good and bad ones with no in betweens?. I am now going to retreat into my bunker!
I wonder what Newbie Joinerb thinks of these posts? he only asked about fees.
Can I throw in a wobbler? An observation I have made is first class tradesmen and in particular carpenters are self opinionated, as are first class architects. Is this why there are only good and bad ones with no in betweens?. I am now going to retreat into my bunker!
BigShot
Established Member
With regards to "won't get planning permission without architect-drawn plans".
Guff.
I'm not an architect (though I'm probably going to study and qualify as one) but if the above quote was true I'd never earn a penny and not a single house I've done drawings for would have been granted planning permission.
As it stands I've done planning drawings (and structural drawings - the latter being something many architects won't touch with a barge pole and will charge a FORTUNE for if they do) for everything from terraces in Salford to Conservation areas and had no problems whatsoever getting planning permission (and some of them were fairly ambitious projects).
Some major works would be unwise to do without an architect, but by no means is it a requirement to use one.
The things you really need are this.
1> A good eye for how to use and move through space. Not all architects have this (I've seen some utterly appalling drawings in the past, some of which have been thrown out entirely and a new design worked up) but many do.
I'm not an architect but have been able to come up with some really nice uses of space (some of it very difficult space, like loft conversions).
So - if you have a good eye for that, or are working with a contractor who has it, or anything else, then no, it's not essential to have an architect involved. If you're unsure on that front though an architect could be the difference between a really nice bit of work and something that just about does the job but is dark, cluttered and rather unpleasant.
2> A drawing to submit for planning approval (and another for building regulations, though the two can be a single drawing).
There is absolutely no reason whatsoever that you couldn't get planning approval without the help of an architect. It is entirely possible (skills and eye provided) for a householder, contractor, family friend or artsy type down the pub to run up the necessary drawings for a planning application.
I love good architecture, I will study to qualify as an architect, but I do think it's a bit much when people suggest you have to use one.
If you get the right architect the result can be fabulous.
I've picked up the pieces left by a terrible architect and left the clients over the moon with what they got out of it.
Having heard stories where architects have said "that's what I've drawn" when asked about changes to a proposal I've got a bit of a sour taste left by some of the bad guys... but I'd still say it's better to use an architect if you're a bit dim (in the nicest possible way) about use of space and flow and the likes and not too clued about how construction should be done so you can keep contractors in line.
Otherwise, the choice is yours.
I hope I don't upset anyone with this post. I do believe the profession is a good and valuable one, I just think people are often too quick to defer to an architect when one isn't necessarily needed.
Guff.
I'm not an architect (though I'm probably going to study and qualify as one) but if the above quote was true I'd never earn a penny and not a single house I've done drawings for would have been granted planning permission.
As it stands I've done planning drawings (and structural drawings - the latter being something many architects won't touch with a barge pole and will charge a FORTUNE for if they do) for everything from terraces in Salford to Conservation areas and had no problems whatsoever getting planning permission (and some of them were fairly ambitious projects).
Some major works would be unwise to do without an architect, but by no means is it a requirement to use one.
The things you really need are this.
1> A good eye for how to use and move through space. Not all architects have this (I've seen some utterly appalling drawings in the past, some of which have been thrown out entirely and a new design worked up) but many do.
I'm not an architect but have been able to come up with some really nice uses of space (some of it very difficult space, like loft conversions).
So - if you have a good eye for that, or are working with a contractor who has it, or anything else, then no, it's not essential to have an architect involved. If you're unsure on that front though an architect could be the difference between a really nice bit of work and something that just about does the job but is dark, cluttered and rather unpleasant.
2> A drawing to submit for planning approval (and another for building regulations, though the two can be a single drawing).
There is absolutely no reason whatsoever that you couldn't get planning approval without the help of an architect. It is entirely possible (skills and eye provided) for a householder, contractor, family friend or artsy type down the pub to run up the necessary drawings for a planning application.
I love good architecture, I will study to qualify as an architect, but I do think it's a bit much when people suggest you have to use one.
If you get the right architect the result can be fabulous.
I've picked up the pieces left by a terrible architect and left the clients over the moon with what they got out of it.
Having heard stories where architects have said "that's what I've drawn" when asked about changes to a proposal I've got a bit of a sour taste left by some of the bad guys... but I'd still say it's better to use an architect if you're a bit dim (in the nicest possible way) about use of space and flow and the likes and not too clued about how construction should be done so you can keep contractors in line.
Otherwise, the choice is yours.
I hope I don't upset anyone with this post. I do believe the profession is a good and valuable one, I just think people are often too quick to defer to an architect when one isn't necessarily needed.
MikeG.
Established Member
BigShot":34xl5mwa said:
Where on earth have you got these quotes from? No-one, as far as I can see, has suggested anything of the sort........
In fact, I doubt if many architects would make these assertions. I certainly wouldn't. My assertion is that you are likely to get a better quality final product if you involve an architect because of design...........not because of the drawings.
Mike
BigShot
Established Member
Mike...
That's where.
I don't necessarily agree that hiring an architect would lead to a better design than a non-architect with the right eye, (I know for sure I've turned out some much better designs than the exact same job done by an architect - not that that reflects on all architects of course) but for people without that eye, or who don't know someone with it, an architect (and not just any architect as I think you said in an earlier post) really is a good idea.
If someone had a good idea about how they use space, how to use space and a creative streak, they could well get the perfect works done on their own design whether someone else drew up the plans or not, but most folk don't seem to be blessed with that and for them I'd always suggest finding someone who is (architect or otherwise).
I suppose the main thing that gets me about what some people seem to think (no reflection on yourself) is that an architect is some sort of magic pill. Some architects are, some aren't. Some are pure "head in the clouds" and others are really practical. Some do amazing work, others less so.
Ditto for non-architects like myself; though of course I think I do a pretty good job.
big soft moose":22ods167 said:
That's where.
I don't necessarily agree that hiring an architect would lead to a better design than a non-architect with the right eye, (I know for sure I've turned out some much better designs than the exact same job done by an architect - not that that reflects on all architects of course) but for people without that eye, or who don't know someone with it, an architect (and not just any architect as I think you said in an earlier post) really is a good idea.
If someone had a good idea about how they use space, how to use space and a creative streak, they could well get the perfect works done on their own design whether someone else drew up the plans or not, but most folk don't seem to be blessed with that and for them I'd always suggest finding someone who is (architect or otherwise).
I suppose the main thing that gets me about what some people seem to think (no reflection on yourself) is that an architect is some sort of magic pill. Some architects are, some aren't. Some are pure "head in the clouds" and others are really practical. Some do amazing work, others less so.
Ditto for non-architects like myself; though of course I think I do a pretty good job
.
big soft moose
Established Member
- Joined
- 22 May 2008
- Messages
- 5,079
- Reaction score
- 0
my point was that most of the advice in self build magazines etc suggest that you have a better chance of getting planning permision if you use an architect,
I'd happily not use one (no offence to mike or any other architects here) and get joe bloggs down the pub to draw my plans for me (thus saving 4k to spend on materials
however i would rather spend the cash, use an architect, and get the PP than "save" the money but get my PP rejected.
I have a reasonable eye and grasp of cad, and can certainly come up with a set of plans that a builder could work off (not least because i will be doing 99% of the build myself anyway) but i probably cant draw a set of plans that will convince the local planning inspector, particularly if i am unlucky enough to get a jobsworth.
I'm not looking for an architect to "improve" or "develop" my design , as i know what i like and roughly what i want to build (the specifics will follow once the plot is found) , and how to use space - the principal reason for getting architect drawings in my case is to help convince the planning officer.
There is also the issue of certification which will be required by my lender - i somehow doubt that joe bloggs down the pub can do that too so it might make sense to involve an architect from the get go.
it is all moot at the moment as i am yet to find a plot , and as mike rightly pointed out earlier the design is to fit the plot , not tother way arround.
I'd happily not use one (no offence to mike or any other architects here) and get joe bloggs down the pub to draw my plans for me (thus saving 4k to spend on materials
however i would rather spend the cash, use an architect, and get the PP than "save" the money but get my PP rejected.
I have a reasonable eye and grasp of cad, and can certainly come up with a set of plans that a builder could work off (not least because i will be doing 99% of the build myself anyway) but i probably cant draw a set of plans that will convince the local planning inspector, particularly if i am unlucky enough to get a jobsworth.
I'm not looking for an architect to "improve" or "develop" my design , as i know what i like and roughly what i want to build (the specifics will follow once the plot is found) , and how to use space - the principal reason for getting architect drawings in my case is to help convince the planning officer.
There is also the issue of certification which will be required by my lender - i somehow doubt that joe bloggs down the pub can do that too so it might make sense to involve an architect from the get go.
it is all moot at the moment as i am yet to find a plot , and as mike rightly pointed out earlier the design is to fit the plot , not tother way arround.
BigShot
Established Member
big soft moose
As far as a better chance, I'm not even so sure about that.
Planning departments vary wildly (and some seem populated entirely by morons) but so far I've not come up against a problem that wouldn't have been a problem were an architect involved (and one was a roof balcony and loft conversion in a conservation area - a lovely job that will be built as soon as it get building regulations approval).
Unless you're doing something really out there I can't see PP being "rejected" unless you tick the box saying you won't budge on anything. If you're prepared to work with the planning department bods, or have an application which doesn't break any of the rather clear rules there shouldn't be a problem.
As for a drawing to convince the planning department, I can't see that being a problem. While a super fancy drawing might help, most architect drawings I've seen really don't include anything like that level of detail (I've got one in the office now that's a stunner and I still look at it from time to time for some of the detail on there - but the vast majority that I've seen are simple to the point where you wonder what was paid for (experience, I know, but it doesn't show through on the drawing in so far as elevations are concerned).
If you're talking about a new build, you have two options. One is using an architect. The other is NHBC. Both should be acceptable to your lender and the latter would allow Joe Bloggs to do the drawings.
I have to say, I agree completely about the design fitting the plot and not just plonking your dream build down on whatever plot you can find. The kind of buildings that stun always fit the landscape.
As far as a better chance, I'm not even so sure about that.
Planning departments vary wildly (and some seem populated entirely by morons) but so far I've not come up against a problem that wouldn't have been a problem were an architect involved (and one was a roof balcony and loft conversion in a conservation area - a lovely job that will be built as soon as it get building regulations approval).
Unless you're doing something really out there I can't see PP being "rejected" unless you tick the box saying you won't budge on anything. If you're prepared to work with the planning department bods, or have an application which doesn't break any of the rather clear rules there shouldn't be a problem.
As for a drawing to convince the planning department, I can't see that being a problem. While a super fancy drawing might help, most architect drawings I've seen really don't include anything like that level of detail (I've got one in the office now that's a stunner and I still look at it from time to time for some of the detail on there - but the vast majority that I've seen are simple to the point where you wonder what was paid for (experience, I know, but it doesn't show through on the drawing in so far as elevations are concerned).
If you're talking about a new build, you have two options. One is using an architect. The other is NHBC. Both should be acceptable to your lender and the latter would allow Joe Bloggs to do the drawings.
I have to say, I agree completely about the design fitting the plot and not just plonking your dream build down on whatever plot you can find. The kind of buildings that stun always fit the landscape.
