*
I just purchased a beautifully illustrated book published by Taunton. Howver as an architect, I cannot endorse this book. Please read attachment to find out why.
Discussion Forum
Discussion Forum
Up Next
Video Shorts
Featured Story
The RealTruck AMP Research Bedsteps give you easy access to your truck-bed storage.
Highlights
"I have learned so much thanks to the searchable articles on the FHB website. I can confidently say that I expect to be a life-long subscriber." - M.K.
Replies
*
Mr. Shannon,
As both a General Contractor and a carpentry sub contractor, I have had the dubious pleasure of working for and under your compatriots in two countries.
I have nothing flattering to say about architects ( small "a" ).
Perhaps you are different to the incompetents I have worked with. They too charge between 8 and 10 percent, a fee which is nothing more than daylight robbery for the service performed. ( Keep in mind that here we are fully licenced and have to gaurantee our work for 6 years after hand over ).
I cannont recall seeing a set of architects plans yet, that didn't require some major rectification during construction, ( all under supervision of course!!)
It is my opinion that a well drawn set of plans along with a detailed specification and scope of works will be a much much fairer option to both the client and the contractor.
It would be a cold day in hell before I ever recommended any potential client to engage the services of the average architect.
DISCLAIMER
That GURL and the ARKYTEK are not included in these observations.
*Edward,I'd be interested in reading your attachment, but I don't DL or open Word format documents from unsecure sources because of the virus risks arising from MS Word's architecture (so to speak)Could you save the document in question in .rtf or ASCII or ANSII .txt or .wpd WordPerfect format and repost?Thanks,bob
*I started reading the document, but got bored pretty quickly. So here's the deal, Ed.This is the builder vs. architect argument that shows up here every once in a while and on every job that involves a builder and architect. Architects think builders are uneducated low-life thieves and builders think architects are snotty nose, pink-sweatered snob ignoramus'. Architects think builders are just too stupid to build what they've drawn, and can't figure out how to connect the dots from one page to the next, while builders think architects would fall over sideways if they held a 20 oz. Estwing and can't seem to realize that the ability to draw pretty lines has nothing to do with the laws of physics on the jobsite.Or do contractors wear the pink sweaters and drive the volvos? Anyway, I've always believed that the inherent tension between builders and architects is a good thing. They keep each other on their toes, and make each other do better than they would do on their own. Even though neither would ever admit it to be true. I've never seen a set of final drawings that covered everything or got it all right; I've seen judgment calls by the contractor on the job site that would have crashed and burned without the brilliance of an architect's sudden epiphany to solve the problem.So we all keep up the good work and hopefully the best house gets built. And which one's the thief is just a matter of perspective. Ask the customer and he'll say we all are (just kidding, so don't get on my back).SHG
*It's been my experience as a customer of architects (not as a builder) that Architects complicate the process. I would think that having a builder involved from the start would be a good way to design a project while talking about real world costs. An Architect, no matter how good, can't design a project with a budget in mind. Most seem to take the "Lets just throw it all in and see what it costs" Approach.Any artist can create an asthetically pleasing structure, an experienced contractor and home owner team can create a functional structure and if there are structural issues, an Engineer can solve most of them in minutes.In a situation where a client doesn't really have an idea what they want to build, an architect can hold their hand and get them to a final design but in all situations where a client knows what he or she wants, an architect isn't needed.Simplify, Simplify, Simplify. You've got to have a builder, find one you like and trust and work with him from the start, much easier if the guy building it is the guy designing it.If you want your back patted, post this whine on an architect's forum.
*Ryan, I can't agree with you entirely on this one. I think there's lots of cases where the client knows what he/she wants, but because the idea is ugly/impractical/code-violating/in need of load analysis/etc., the services of an architect can save me lots of time and effort and lead to a happier client than if I'd winged it myself. Also, there's nothing like stamped drawings to zing the plans through the review process and obtain a permit in a timely fashion. Those same papers simplify preparations of estimates and giving instructions to the subs.I agree completely with you that it's a good idea to have the builder involved from the start, and the architects I work with have no problem with this. We work together to meet the clients' needs and desires, and to keep the project "buildable". If the architect works WITH the builder, I think there's a greater chance that the plans and specifications will reflect a practical design that can be built with a minimum of difficulties.Out of fairness, architects (and designers) bring me business, and vice-versa. Anyhow, the relationships work well for me.Steve
*Gentlemen,Having been involved in the construction of design built projects that have to be bid, prior to completion of drawings, for the better part of my working career, I think that I can offer some insight.Architects are but one of the subcontractors that are required to bring a project from conception to completion.They are no more valuable than any other trade.However, I have seen a disproportional amount of waste caused by prima dona architects than any other single trade.Mr. Architect, I'm sorry but if it weren't for quality builders, you would have to look at your designs on canvas instead of appreciating a new building that you would have had a small part in creating.Get off your high horse and be damn glad that Tauton Press gives you this opportunity to learn something new. Remember, even the Bible was never written precise enough not to have sparked a million debates about it's interpretation of each and every passage in it.Gabe
*hey ed.. nice letter but u cud have saved the ink...none of this seems to work in the ideal unless u have all three corners of the triangle..an owner with a reasonable budget appropriate to the needs of the project..a designer / architect who can put the needs, desires , and esthetics down on paper.. and the builder to faithfully execute the plan to the INTENTIONS of the project...the competitive bidding process for custom work is a bad deal at best... it assumes that the bidders are equally talented and motivated and have the same sense of ethics...good plans and specs don't guarantee performance, the builder can always go belly-up and then no one comes out whole..the bidder can go into the project with no intention of specific performance..the architect cannot guarantee to the owner that the competitive bids received will all be equal in fact..as a matter of fact it is self evident that just the fact that they all have different prices means that they are not the same thing anyways....if ..... if.. i'm involved in a competive bid process i want reasonable assurance that my 40 to 100 hours of the bid process will meet with success..why should i , or any other successful competent contractor devote that investment to your plans and specs....nah, yur barkin up the wrong tree...here's how the competitive bid process works in PUBLIC construction...the plans and specs are issued on an invittaion to bid or an open listing ..the interested parties review and compile their estimate and then create a bid strategy...the successful bidder is awarded the contract and then proceeds to shop the job.. trying to resell it to gain lower and lower prices from subs and material suppliers... the job is executed in a manner to gain acceptance from the reviewing authority.. so payment will be made.. the minimum acceptable performance is paid for ..disputes are resolved by a dispute process... and the retainage is finally released..the owner takes possession and proceeds to find all of the hidden defects in the product..is that the competive bidding process you are trying to defend as being applicable to custom home building and remodeling ?or do you have some other description of the process that you have developed.?b we have met the enemy and he is alive and well in la-la land...Pogo
*You read this as being biased against architects; from your description, it sounds more like some balance being brought to the question, and the builder types are being given some of the respect I feel they deserve. BTW, I am one of the more pro-architect people on this board, and I like working with good architects. The good ones in my experience acknowledge that while our role is primarily technical expertise and execution, we may have something to contribute in the areas of aesthetics, ergonomics, project management, or whatever. I agree with Gabe about the relative value of an architect: an important part of the team, but nothing gets built without all the other pieces. And I agree wholeheartedly with Mike about the pitfalls of the competitive bid system; I know how I approach a competitive bidding process, and I think the customer is usually better served by choosing a builder or a sub and then working with that person to determine the scope of the project. I have to do a lot of bidding, and I don't think the customer is automatically well served by the process, which is the common assumption.Anyway, yeah, I think you came to the wrong place if you are looking for support to diminish the role of the builder.
*
Dear Gabe,
You seem offended by my letter. I appreciate, and work with competent contractors. I know the value that they can bring to a job site. My letter was written simply in response to the biased view that "Adding to a House" presents to bidding and the architect's services. The different 'delivery methods' were not presented objectively. So tell me, Mr. Contractor, without competetive bidding, how does the owner know they are getting a cometetive price?
*
Hi Edward,
No, I'm not offended by your letter or anyone elses, for that matter. Been at this game too long.
You, however, bought a book that didn't agree with your personal views and then used this venue to whin about it. If you only read what you agree with, you won't need much space for your library.
In answer to your question to me, competitive bidding is dependent on honest bidding in order to be competitive. In our business, too often, the successful contractor has bid without a profit margin and then beat the trades to make his profits. Subs that have had their prices chopped, cannot and will not do the same work as they would normally do.
A project that is underfunded, for whatever reason, will never be of a quality equal to one that has a reasonable budget.
Clients who want the best must be prepared to pay.
Luckily, for the client, there are enough honest competent builders and tradesment to ensure reasonable benchmarks for them to judge and choose a contractor to build their dream home.
Working a project at the present time that had to be re-bid because the original architect wasn't experienced in designing sports arenas and came in a million over budget on a 5 million arena. That's a 20% error. Our design team had to do the modification to the original proposal in order to meet the clients needs and still meet their budget restrictions.
The original architect had her nose out of joint as a result and requested a re-tender.
Like I said, architects are just another subcontractor in the building industry.
Gabe
*WHERE DO I START!!!!My wife is an architect, and I have the highest respect for SOME of the profession.A good architect can make my job easy, and save clients money, But they are few and far between.Most run the costs up with foolish spec.Now that I have Been nice here we goMr.Shannon DO YOU BID YOUR WORK. You say its based on an hourly fee. How do your clients know they are getting the best price. I would hope it is by checking references, looking at past projects and asking questions. You(most architects) feel that if you have clear drawings that no matter what dumb ass puts it together, it will be equal.My customers know that they are NOT getting the best price. They are getting a fair price and the best quality. How do they know this. By checking with past clients, my reputation, etc. The same way they chose there Architect.You want me to commit to a price for a CONCEPT. Hey guys anyone out there willing to do that, cause if you are Im going to get my wife to write the SPECS.1. All fasteners to be Stainless Steel no no make that Titianum2. All lumber to be virgin tide water cypress3. My Favorite real architect spec ALL hinges to be solid brass with BALL BEARINGS meeting spec.BLAH BLAH BLAHWhy dont you hire a builder as a consultant???You hire engineers, Landscape Arch., Interior Designers. WHY because who could know more about building than an Arhitect..The AIA has spent millions on documents that are so far from app. for residential construction its absurd.These documents do more to cover YOUR ASS than an client.But my favorite is that clause you will always find that vary from place to place that Removes all responabilty from the Architect for error or omitionsThere is alot you can learn from US builders, and vice versa, but dont hold us to some standard that you are not willing to matchLovin my few, not afraid to ask, smart Architects who do get fairly accurate Design development prices from me
*i none of this seems to work in the ideal unless u have all three corners of the triangle.. Nicely put, Mike, as usual on this subject.Jeff
*
Mike Smith pretty much nailed it down for us, however...
I prefer design/build with a contractor I KNOW as a "blind date" that turns into a "shotgun wedding".
As for architects as "just another subcontractor"...
1. If you (Gabe) took the lowest bid fromGab "sub", then I guess you got what you paid for...
2.) How is it that a "sub" gets to prepare plans and specs to direct all the other "subs'" activity?
spewstruth is, design/bid is fraught with opportunity for screw-ups if the parties involved aren't competent and working together.
What we need is a project delivery system that matches all the jerk architects (I admit they are plentiful)with the jerk contractors and jerk owners.
*
Hi Terry,
I don't know where you got your misconceptions but time to join the 21st century.
In design built projects, the Architect of record, is a subcontractor and nothing more. No, he or she does not direct all the other trades and only prepares drawings to our specifications.
The Architect does not assume the same financial responsibilities as the GC.
In design built projects, awards are not simply made on the lowest tendered bid, but more importantly on past performance and experience on the type of project being proposed.
Gabe
*Terry,Could you please explain this a little further. I'm having trouble getting what you mean. Thank you.
*Ed, A couple questions. If you are working as the "agent of the owner", How do you suggest choosing the contractor with the competitive bid process.Also, the AIA contracts I've seen ( granted I work in a breeding area for lawyersthey could have been tweaked ) are set up to SCREW the contractor. Is this what the AIA wants? Just curious
*At 8 to 10% of the construction costs the design fee is the largest single item in the budget. The idea that this fee can be covered by the spread in competative bids is ridiculous. If the lowest bid were 10% less than the next bid it would be very suspect. A client seeking to build a new home can buy a whole plan package for less than $1000. On a 2000 square foot house architectural fees can easily run $20,000. The client needs serious justification for that difference. Either the client must want a custom home, including the designers artistic expression, or the designer must be able to realize a substantial savings though the creative process, or both. Construction costs can be reduced only by reducing size, complexity or quality. Size can sometimes be reduced in the design process, but usually not substantially. Cost savings through reduction of quality can usually be best realized at the level of specification. This is a colaborative process between the client who knows what he/she wants and the designer who should know what things cost. Reduction of complexity is where the design process can yield the real savings that justify its cost. Unfortunately many architects are much more adept at making things more complex than less. Substantial savings can only be realized if the designer is thoroughly familiar with the construction process and all its details. The construction budget is at the heart of the design process. Design fees should be part of that budget but often aren't. Clients are often more interested in getting what they want within their budget than they are in getting the cheapest possible price. The designer should damn well know pretty much what the design is going to cost without bids. I have, too often, seen people spend good money for designs that they can't afford to build. I approach the design/build process this way. At the first meeting with the client we discuss the scope of the project and the budget. Then I determine if the project can be done within that budget including my design fees. I then give the client a fixed price for the design work broken down to preliminary, final design and working drawings and documents. At the completion of the working drawings, I will bid the construction and the client is free to seek other bids. Nobody ever has.
*
In a lot of ways, this discussion focuses on what we as professional builders find incredibly frustrating. First of all, we have designers/architects who have no conception as to what things cost...surely they have discussed a proposed budget with the client prior to beginning the design work, and then they draw whatever is requested. The client thinks that what is being designed is within their budget, while the designer, not having the foggiest notion as to actual costs, blithely scrawls away and produces something beyond the clients capability and/or expectations.
Then we get to the competitive bidding process and here things get even more confusing. As has been expressed by others, contract proposals are all over the place either because of incomplete specifications or other unknown information, especially in renovation and remodelling work. A smart but unethical builder will low-ball all prices, write a tight contract, and then let fly with the extras. I find myself convincing prospective clients to go with a cost-plus proposal, and then, as often as not, price myself out of the market by producing a comprehensive budget that doesn't conveniently neglect many of those pesky items that always seem to crop up.
Ideally, I like to become involved with a project at the the design stage, with the knowledge that I will be the builder. I prefer architects to designers because, for the most part, I feel that the superior training the architect has produces better design. The builder involvement can draw attention to many of the details that architects just don't pick up on whiling their time away at the computer screen (that's another issue). Cost issues can be addressed much earlier.
Of course, all of this is predicated on the client placing a great deal of trust in the builder. Notwithstanding the false sense of security clients feel by having a fixed price contract in their hip pockets, the notion of engaging a relatively unknown person and essentially bestowing on him the responsibility to spend a LOT of their hard-earned money on their project without a firm price agreement is quite a leap. But I'm convinced that it's the best deal for the client and it's a way that I certainly prefer to operate.
In conclusion, I think that our industry has been besmirched by incompetence and unethical behavior. It's not surprising that trust is a somewhat rare commodity. As individuals, we just have to carry on and genuinely look at what we do not as businessmen but as craftsmanship and remember that if we do it right, 200 years from now, our workmanship will still be on display. I think it's a legacy that we can be proud of.
*
most of the homes i (architect) have designed have sold (when the owner does sell) for at least twice what comparable quality builder designed homes sell for (and probably cost less to build). and sometimes you get "beauty that makes you weep" for free. hell, i've got to defend myself with my back against the wall.
*John,A couple of questions: Why don't all the original owners of your houses just sell them, double their money, and then build again? Why do you even bother working for clients for a lousy percentage when you could just spec build your own designs and more than double your money?
*Quite a piece of horn tootin John.
*i'm probably not smart enough to explain it. maybe something like if what you are after is money why are you doing what you do. a lot of architects don't understand building and sure a lot of builders don't understand architecture. a good builder is rare, good archiceture is rare. diamonds don't come in bunches and lions don't come in herds. really, i am just trying to make the point (not the argument) that there can be a quality in a building that people recognize when they see it. one of the real deals of architecture is to make a way for a client to move beyond what they think they want. you see so many times when people build what they think they want and then find its not enough. the most wonderful thing is to build a house for people and then have them say that they make new discoveries there every day. they find an order, they find some light. i'm sorry my post sounded glib or something. i was just trying to say that there can be something there in a building that takes it beyond a building into architecture.
*well, i can see how it sounded like that. i'm sorry it sounded like that. please see the above response. thanks.
*b TVMDCI have been lucky to be involved with several owners in the evolution of plans for several major projects. While I have respect for architects' design abilty, some, not all, with whom I've worked somehow missed the boat on the budget or maintenance consequences of their designs:Like putting a 3-story glass wall facing south with a ton of Par-38's lighting up the interior. Ops, didn't think about the cost of dbl glazed low-E glass, 50 tons of addtl HVAC, and all the juice for the lights.Or using Glulams on the exterior with roof flashing kerfed into them instead of a coping on wolminized paralams, or specifying specially milled shiplap redwood siding sized 3/4 x 6-3/4 (why not use 1x6 or 1x8 with only 2 rabbit cuts?) Or using BUR "(TYP)" when modified is a far superior roofing material? Or putting railing posts in the deck rather than on the outside wall, etc., etc.On the basis of all the repair work I've done due to buildings which lacked design insight enriched with field experience, I have to vote for contractor involvement in the design stage: the owner gets a better home, costs are contained due to synergistic problem solving, and it saves a ton of fax paper on RFI's.By the way, in California, we generals have to post a $7500 bond and are responsible for (10) years for latent defects. So for us, the financial consequences of misguided design can be enormous. Besides, it can be a lot of fun bantering with a good architect.
*what you say is all to true. shoddy architects, like shoddy builders are plentiful. ah, but when one of each good ones get together on the rare occasion, what wonderful things can unfold. i really like contractor involvement in the design phase. everyone is "bought in" and working together and sometimes a real satisfaction happens and life feels good. when bantering everyone learns something. there is always a new depth to life to fathom.
*i was just trying to say that there can be something there in a building that takes it beyond a building into architecture. In The Most Beautiful House in the World (which incidentally is the one you build for yourself) Witold Rybczynski comments at length on Nikolaus Pevsner's pronouncement that "A bicycle shed is a building; Lincoln Cathedral is a piece of architecture." What, Rybczynski asks, distinguishes the two. Not aesthetic appeal as Pevsner would have it. "(W)ho can say that the builder of a bicycle shed does not care about its appearance?" Not size, for there are many little masterpieces in architectural history books. Not loftiness of purpose, for many buildings of mundane purpose can lift the spirit. Perhaps architecture is building that manages to survive and skews the historical record. "It would be convenient if architecture could be defined as any building designed by an architect. But who is an architect?" Neither Wright nor Mies nor Le Corbusier was formally trained as an architect. The great architects of the Renaissance were called architects because they created architecture. Today state boards define who can legally call themselves architects. The AIA would like people to believe that they have some say in the matter, and AIA members must be licensed by their states, but licensed architects need not belong to the AIA. Returning to Rybczynski he concludes: "Architecture has been described as the art of building, but this is a judgment of effect rather than cause. if we call buildings that move us 'architecture", the we leave open the question of whether they are grand or small, known or unknown, sheds or cathedrals. and we leave open the question of who designed them. What finally distinguishes the members of the winner's circle from the uncouth mob of 'mere' buildings is not their architectural quality but their social standing, the sanction of the critic and the art historian, and the effect of (the) Law of Historical Survival, not any intrinsic attribute."
*
I just purchased a beautifully illustrated book published by Taunton. Howver as an architect, I cannot endorse this book. Please read attachment to find out why.