Engaging an Architect.

creedp

dont mean to sound harsh towards Engineers but poor building design and the bungalow bliss effect along with absolutely unforgivably incompitent planning personnel have led to so much of the hardship this country is in right now.

In fairness I don't think you can claim that engineers or planners for one-off housing has contributed in any signifcant way to our current 'hardship'. Unless you are defining 'hardship' in terms of 'plain buildings'. I'm afraid I would define hardship in a slightly different way and 'bungalow pain' is not one of them.

Also in relation to the big white elephant developments, which you could argue have contributed to our problems, it is most likely that the full array of architects/engineers/etc were involved but it was good old fashioned greed across all sectors which actually caused the hardship, IMHO

creedp

FergusD wrote: »

We're straying waaaayyyyyy off topic here, but I think building design and bungalow bliss are the least of our worries. Poor planning personnel may be slightly more to blame, but lack of financial regulation, lack of proper advice (mainly economic) to our politicians, lack of ability to understand and act on the advice they did get and a desire by all concerned to believe that the party could continue forever were far more relevant reasons as to where we are now.

Fergus.

Damm you beat me to it

sydthebeat

ok lads, back on topic now!!!

martinn123

Slig wrote: »

Architect or Architectural Technician initially would be my choice with an Engineer on-site working in conjunction with the arch/arch tech as the building goes up.

but, what I would like to point out is that no matter what ONE profession you choose they will still only have a limited knowledge of any other professionals field. Eg. An Architect will have a rough idea of the size of a steel beam required for a particular span and will overspec where as an engineer would be able to calculate the exact size required potentially saving the client money.

At last we are getting to the core of issues which have arisen, after the various Professionals extoling the virtues of their own Training.So who is in charge, and Flat Fee's or %.This sounds like a good comprimise, best of both worlds,etc.

sydthebeat

martinn123 wrote: »

At last we are getting to the core of issues which have arisen, after the various Professionals extoling the virtues of their own Training.So who is in charge, and Flat Fee's or %.This sounds like a good comprimise, best of both worlds,etc.

martin, have you never been involved with a project with a 'design team' engaged?
This is the general norm for non domestic projects.. there's architects, engineers, technicians, mech and elec etc sometimes with other professionals such as fire engineers, interior design, landscape architects etc.

On domestic projects however, the client usually doesnt want to go to the expense of hiring more than 1 professional if they can "get away with it". Thats where experience and ability comes into it. I would argue that an engineer may not be able to enhance their design ability through experience, but a technician or architect may be able to enhance their engineer ability through experience.
The client usually wants a one stop shop, although i have often been involved on domestic builds where there has been an architect and an engineer, with the engineer being engaged to design and certify specific structural issues.

You ask who is in charge, well that's easy... the contract administer is the professional in charge. Be they the architect, engineer or technician.

There is a "best practise" way of doing things, which is what we should all be striving for. However, there will always be a market for someone trying to do things on the cheap.

martinn123

sydthebeat wrote: »

martin, have you never been involved with a project with a 'design team' engaged?
This is the general norm for non domestic projects.. there's architects, engineers, technicians, mech and elec etc sometimes with other professionals such as fire engineers, interior design, landscape architects etc.

No.

On domestic projects however, the client usually doesnt want to go to the expense of hiring more than 1 professional if they can "get away with it". Thats where experience and ability comes into it. I would argue that an engineer may not be able to enhance their design ability through experience, but a technician or architect may be able to enhance their engineer ability through experience.
The client usually wants a one stop shop, although i have often been involved on domestic builds where there has been an architect and an engineer, with the engineer being engaged to design and certify specific structural issues.

You ask who is in charge, well that's easy... the contract administer is the professional in charge. Be they the architect, engineer or technician.

There is a "best practise" way of doing things, which is what we should all be striving for. However, there will always be a market for someone trying to do things on the cheap.

Yes I can agree with all that.
It has been interesting to get practical examples of how people have gone about such a project. Thats why I posted, to generate a debate.
I have no real issue with people posting in support of their own profession, thats to be expected, but real examples, are more useful
Yes some will try to do it on the cheap, and if they read some of the threads here they will see the pitfalls.

If a consensus is reached on Fees, Supervision, and other aspects I hope it will save someone in a project from making serious mistakes.

therightangle

sydthebeat wrote: »

I would argue that an engineer may not be able to enhance their design ability through experience, but a technician or architect may be able to enhance their engineer ability through experience.

I would hire an engineer who has a design flair, but I would be slow to hire an architect who says he can design structural beams....

I think the central figure should be the professional who has both energy analysis training and who can sign off on your build. He/she will therefore influence all stages of the build, from planning/design, costings through to Building Regulation compliance/sign-off, and could be from either of the Architect or Engineer disciplines.

DOCARCH

therightangle wrote: »

....an engineer....design flair....

First time I've seen those two words in conjunction in one sentence!

Sorry, totally off topic, but could not resist.

No6

DOCARCH wrote: »

First time I've seen those two words in conjunction in one sentence!

Sorry, totally off topic, but could not resist.

Calatriva but i wouldn't like to get a quote of him!!!:D

sinnerboy

Eiffel - oh wait though, he's brown bread.

DOCARCH

No6 wrote: »

Calatriva....

True, but he is a qualified architect (before he qualified as an engineer).

Double to the fees!!!

No6

DOCARCH wrote: »

True, but he is a qualified architect (before he qualified as an engineer).

Double to the fees!!!

And he bridged the chasm between the professions!!!:D

sydthebeat

bring this thread back on topic or it will be locked.

martinn123

thanks to all the contributors, so far, I think in some areas a consensus has been reached, I say that as no one is posting against some of the suggestions. For example.

sydthebeat wrote:

On domestic projects however, the client usually doesnt want to go to the expense of hiring more than 1 professional if they can "get away with it". Thats where experience and ability comes into it. I would argue that an engineer may not be able to enhance their design ability through experience, but a technician or architect may be able to enhance their engineer ability through experience.The client usually wants a one stop shop, although i have often been involved on domestic builds where there has been an architect and an engineer, with the engineer being engaged to design and certify specific structural issues.

Or,

slig wrote:

Architect or Architectural Technician initially would be my choice with an Engineer on-site working in conjunction with the arch/arch tech as the building goes up.but, what I would like to point out is that no matter what ONE profession you choose they will still only have a limited knowledge of any other professionals field. Eg. An Architect will have a rough idea of the size of a steel beam required for a particular span and will overspec where as an engineer would be able to calculate the exact size required potentially saving the client money.

Or,

sinnerboy wrote:

The other vital reason to appoint an Architect ( when I say that I mean Architect or Architectural Technician ) is to see that the project is built properly , on time and on budget. Architects achieve this ( and I am being very brief here and encompassing a lot of processes / work ) byAcuaratley assessing and describing works in drawings specification and contract documentation before any builder gets near your site . Regular site inspections to monitor works quality and progress and vitally controlling payments to the builder. " If you don't fix it I won't pay you" never fails. Clients are almost always very relieved to have distance in these matters - which arose in every single job I worked on over 25 years. At completion certifications to satisfy future conveyancing transactions ( selling or re mortgaging ) Fees for these services cost more than an appointment for mortgage draw downs only. This appointment covers the bank .

So the question, and I am looking for your experiences here, is what is the most economical combination of Expertise, on a self build.You need Planning, you need a good design, you need someone to make sure the builder stays on Spec, and you need Certs for the Bank, and Final Certs of Compliance.Most of all you need best value for money, so whats the Combination?

sydthebeat

"Most economical" to most does not equate to "best"

In my opinion the best way for a self builder to finish up with the best designed, detailed and performing dwelling which maximises every value of euro of their build is to engage the professional best suited to the issue at hand. This means engaging a team.

Therefore engage a good architect to design a dwelling that maximises space and light, is specific to the clients needs, and is aesthetically individual and appealing, in context to the topography.

Engage a technician to carry out provisional BER assessments to prescribed ratings, to carry out full construction drawings and detailing, prepare tender documents, and advise as how best to organise mech and elec services.

Engage an engineer to design and certify structural elements with the brief to make the structural elements work in context of the dwelling.

Engage a QS to carry out Bills of quantities so that each tenderer is quoting for the same service, thus affording the client tight rein on budget.

Engage a contractor with best reputation for doing good work and not just the lowest tender. Consult with the design team when assessing tender quotations.

Engage either the architect or the technician as the design team leader to administer the contract, which you definitely should have!. Engage this design team leader to chair on site meetings regularly and engage the design team leader to work in a supervisory role, and not just in an inspectorate role.

That, in my opinion, is the best way a self builder can bring a project in, on time, in budget, and getting best value for money.

If any of the above services as skimped on, then it should be expected that there will be knock on effects. For example an architect may not be engaged to design the dwelling but the client may not end up with the best possible dwelling on this site. It may be possible that at domestic levels some professionals can do others work ie the technician may be able to compile a BOQ, or the architect may be able to carry out the technical works etc, but remember that they are stepping out of where their core skills are based. Thats why its best to engage the best possible professionals from each field.

Therefore, in my opinion, the "most economical" way to get "best value for money" is to do it properly.

martinn123

Thanks sydthebeat, I would agree with your summary........in am ideal world.My difficulty would be faced with such an array of professionals, ( and fees ) most self builders would be put off, by this solution.Money is tight, and the client will try to save wherever he can........it's fine saying additional costs thru overruns etc. will be encountered....but tell that to someone struggling thru the planning, banking, quotation, etc etc nightmare....considering going down the Direct Labour route.......with the missus and kids screaming for the house to be finished....( a bit ott, I know )Is there a service, or partnerships, out there who can offer this combination of professionals, at a reasonable cost.Up to now posters have argued for their own profession, maybe they should look around to share expertise, and offer a complete service to home builders.Your summary I assume, envisages each professional operating in isolation, albe it on the same project, perhaps it could be simplified, under one banner, as reading your post above would actually put me off..

sydthebeat

martinn123 wrote: »

Thanks sydthebeat, I would agree with your summary........in am ideal world.My difficulty would be faced with such an array of professionals, ( and fees ) most self builders would be put off, by this solution.Money is tight, and the client will try to save wherever he can........it's fine saying additional costs thru overruns etc. will be encountered....but tell that to someone struggling thru the planning, banking, quotation, etc etc nightmare....considering going down the Direct Labour route.......with the missus and kids screaming for the house to be finished....( a bit ott, I know )Is there a service, or partnerships, out there who can offer this combination of professionals, at a reasonable cost.Up to now posters have argued for their own profession, maybe they should look around to share expertise, and offer a complete service to home builders.Your summary I assume, envisages each professional operating in isolation, albe it on the same project, perhaps it could be simplified, under one banner, as reading your post above would actually put me off..

martin, you asked how to get best value for money.

You're post above is somehow are assuming that you can save money by skimping on services while still getting the same return for your budget. This is not a correct viewpoint. Professional services are not a luxury. They are required for a reason, and if they are not employed do not expect to get value for money in that area.

If you skimp on the services you will not end up with best value for money, no matter what spin you can put on it.
If youre asking where the happy medium is between accepting lower standards to paying for services, i dont think anyone here is going to give you a yardstick on what is lower standard is acceptable.

how on earth did you get

Your summary I assume, envisages each professional operating in isolation

when you read

This means engaging a team.

:eek:

Is there a service, or partnerships, out there who can offer this combination of professionals, at a reasonable cost

yes of course there is... many practises (be they architectural or engineer) will have in-house professionals to provide each service.
But like any service, even conservatory installation , there are wide ranges of abilities which can be reflected in fees.

martinn123

sydthebeat wrote: »

martin, you asked how to get best value for money.

I really dislike selective quotation which can be adapted to be misread,

so my initial statement, above was

martinn123 wrote:

Thanks sydthebeat, I would agree with your summary........in am ideal world. My difficulty would be faced with such an array of professionals, ( and fees ) most self builders would be put off, by this solution.

I also actually said

martinn123 wrote:

Your summary I assume, envisages each professional operating in isolation, albe it on the same project, perhaps it could be simplified, under one banner, as reading your post above would actually put me off..

The thrust of my above post is that I agree with you.........but as you outline it.......it is off-putting, to the average self-builder.....simplify

sydthebeat wrote:

But like any service, even conservatory installation , there are wide ranges of abilities

You can be sure of that.......present company excluded

martinn123

OK Guys and Gals, who have followed this. After nearly 70 posts, and over 1000 views, sydthebeat is proposing the following as a template for the engagment of Professionals on your build........

sydthebeat wrote: »

;Most economical; to most does not equate to ;best;

In my opinion the best way for a self builder to finish up with the best designed, detailed and performing dwelling which maximises every value of euro of their build is to engage the professional best suited to the issue at hand. This means engaging a team.

Therefore engage a good architect to design a dwelling that maximises space and light, is specific to the clients needs, and is aesthetically individual and appealing, in context to the topography.

Engage a technician to carry out provisional BER assessments to prescribed ratings, to carry out full construction drawings and detailing, prepare tender documents, and advise as how best to organise mech and elec services.

Engage an engineer to design and certify structural elements with the brief to make the structural elements work in context of the dwelling.

Engage a QS to carry out Bills of quantities so that each tenderer is quoting for the same service, thus affording the client tight rein on budget.

Engage a contractor with best reputation for doing good work and not just the lowest tender. Consult with the design team when assessing tender quotations.

Engage either the architect or the technician as the design team leader to administer the contract, which you definitely should have!. Engage this design team leader to chair on site meetings regularly and engage the design team leader to work in a supervisory role, and not just in an inspectorate role.

That, in my opinion, is the best way a self builder can bring a project in, on time, in budget, and getting best value for money.

If any of the above services as skimped on, then it should be expected that there will be knock on effects. For example an architect may not be engaged to design the dwelling but the client may not end up with the best possible dwelling on this site. It may be possible that at domestic levels some professionals can do others work ie the technician may be able to compile a BOQ, or the architect may be able to carry out the technical works etc, but remember that they are stepping out of where their core skills are based. Thats why its best to engage the best possible professionals from each field.

Therefore, in my opinion, the ;most economical; way to get ;best value for money; is to do it properly.

While I agree in principal, I think its off-putting as too many bodies involved.So ........would you follow this template.............did you go down this route...............where you did not follow this........what went wrong, if anything.Do you think this is the most practical way to insure an on budget/ on time build........Cheers

sinnerboy

martinn123 wrote: »

So ........would you follow this template.............did you go down this route..............

Many clients of mine did for larger projects. €0.5m +

martinn123 wrote: »

Do you think this is the most practical way to insure an on budget/ on time build........Cheers

You can ask as many times as you like .......:)

creedp

martinn123 wrote: »

OK Guys and Gals, who have followed this. After nearly 70 posts, and over 1000 views, sydthebeat is proposing the following as a template for the engagment of Professionals on your build........

While I agree in principal, I think its off-putting as too many bodies involved.So ........would you follow this template.............did you go down this route...............where you did not follow this........what went wrong, if anything.Do you think this is the most practical way to insure an on budget/ on time build........Cheers

I'm going to give my one-off build view on sydthebeats summary in that in a perfect world if I was fully aware of the myriad of professional advice/advisors I could acquire to assist on my project then the summary might have been a useful template for me to follow. However, when I started off there was not a chance in hell I would have been in a position to assess whether or not I needed such professional services/assistance. For instance, for the non-initiated trying to figure out the difference between an architect and arch-technician would require the dictionary or Google, the latter which would give you 100's of responses that would confuse you even more. There are regulations for everything in this country to provide assistance to the consumer on pretty much everything. Remember the silly adds by the Fin Regulator - 'I dont know what a tracker mortgage is'!! I think what martinn123 is saying about having a one stop shop to provide assistance to self-builders in relation to the benefits attached a whole range of these professional services and approx fee costs would be a huge benefit. Unfortunately its of no benefit to me now but I would dearly have liked to have access to such a service prior to starting out on the road.

Juantorena

I think you're asking a question which is impossible to answer Martinn123 (outside of posters past experiences of course).

As in all walks of life there are good, bad and all shades between architects/engineers/builders/etc. And one can determine for oneself what 'good' and 'bad' might constitute.

I have an engineering background. But I also have a layperson's interest in domestic architecture. Now the operative word there is "layperson's" but in my view - and purely from an innovative or appropriateness perspective - architects (specifically) do in many cases short-change their client. Engaging an architect does not guarantee 'good design' and it may even be argued that it doesn't greatly increase the chances of receiving said design level. Over and above whom? Non (architecturally) qualified designers perhaps. previously mentioned (and derided) engineers with design flair, tf suppliers with the knowledge and experience as to what is feasible with their wares.

One caveat to the above though - as a nation we were not particularly aesthetically aware. This may be changing of late but it's likely that many architects have been hampered by an aversion to the unusual when it comes to the Irish home. Anyone trying something a little different now is thought to be brave in my experience

If or when I decide to build again my initial thoughts would be looking to an arch tech/engineer/builder/tf supplier (if chosen) team with predetermined phases of involvement. And try to ensure they can work together at the overlaps.

Slig

I see where you are trying to go Martin but try see it from a different point of view. If I was contracted by a client to "design" their house and I gave my fee of x. As an experienced Arch. Tech. I am compitent to carry out most if not all that is required to get the house built correctly but not to a level that a full design team would.

however, if I gave my client my fee and 2 weeks later came back and said that "we should appoint another professional to carry out another role at a price of x in addition to my fees" I know where I would be told to stick it. Many offices, especially now, dont have enough work for to keep a full design team on their books in house.

Appointing the full list of professionals is obviously (to me anyway) the best route as even combined their fees will still only be a fraction of the overall cost and could potentially be a percentage of the savings made on the final build.

Unfortunately, it is difficult to see from the outset the full scope of each professionals field and there is a long list of specialities but that doesnt have to be a bad thing for the self builder.
E.g Although its shortsighted some people could be set on a particular generic house design and know exactly where they want to put it, in which case they may not need an architect to prepare the plans. They could potentially save on the engineers and arch techs fees by getting the working drawings from a timber frame manufacturer and going with their standard systems.

sydthebeat

i don't see how having a design team in place can in any way be off putting??? in actuality it should be the opposite. The client should sleep soundly at night knowing their dwelling is being looked after by the best possible team of professionals.

If im sick id rather have the best consultants / surgeons working my case than just the local GP.

The 'design team' dont all have equal status where there's no hierarchy. There is a design team leader, who is the contract administrator, and the other professionals are basically sub contractors;' similar to a main contractor and sub contractors. The engineer has a role, the technician as well, etc etc. Even within this team there exists the mech and elec engineers ie the mechanical ventilation, the heat pump etc. They all communicate with each other during the design of the technical aspect of the build, so everything is ironed out before the issues arise on site. In this way, savings are made, both on time and on outlay... add these all through the project and the design team more than pays for itself!!

FergusD

I think that maybe the professionals are presuming a level of knowledge amongst the "average" self builder which just doesn't exist. When you start down this road you don't know enough to make the right decision at the outset. You may know nothing about vast sections of the build.

Speaking for myself, when you're starting a build and looking at all the possible costs, you ask yourself if you need to incur them or can you avoid them. This applies to everything from design on. There are different levels of engagement for different self builders and some (including myself) may try to avoid some of the costs. So to my mind there are two different angles to this:

1). For a totally green/don't get your hands dirty self builder you need a full team.
2). For someone who is interested/technically minded/willing to put in some work/reading/etc. what costs can they avoid? The answer to this is totally subjective and depends on the strengths of the self builder and where they see their priorities lying.

I fell into the second category, so here was my path.

I went for design, so engaged an architect to get planning.

Once I got planning, I knew I needed info on energy/etc. so engaged an energy consultant which for me was a total waste of money. A preliminary BER would have left me in the same situation. I ended up doing a lot of research myself after this "report" and made my own choices on build type and insulation/air tightness levels.

Once I had my energy info, I looked for a quote from a builder who basically told me I didn't have enough info and he needed an engineer to specify things before he could quote.

I asked around and engaged an engineer on a structural and sign-off basis. He also gave me his options for charging including site-visit for discussion if required or an all-in advise package including something like 10 site visits but I didn't take that option at this point.

I went back to the builder and others with my new set of info. I now had planning drawings, energy spec and engineers specification. I got prices including some info from the various builders QS. All prices looked high to me. I ended up a little stuck at this point financially as the bank had changed their mind and now forced us to sell our existing house in Dublin (I was building in Westmeath) - so rather than wait for that to happen we decided to go the direct labour route and start without a mortgage (we had savings).

I got as far as organising the steel (of which we needed a fair amount) when I realised we needed further advice rather than just a specification to direct the block-layer. At this point I went back to the engineer and took his full advice package. Our house in Dublin sold, so we started to rent close to the site - if you were any distance away I don't think direct labour would work. My wife and I dealt with all materials, organising trades etc. and didn't encounter any major issues with delays or problems. Again, she was at the site most days, so could resolve issues as they arose, or else get to understand them to discuss with me in the evenings. I was happy to draw detail for trades but did have to take time off on a couple of occasions to explain things to people or change things that didn't suit me (insulation detailing etc.)

In the end we're very happy with the build, but we had several things going in our favour. We were happy to involved, we both have dealt with projects on a large scale before, I had some limited construction knowledge, we lived close by, we weren't building a house that was stretching us to breaking point financially (so anything that caused the budget to increase didn't force us to change our plans for finishes) and we wanted to produce the interior detail.

The decision on who you need on the build team is entirely personal and depends on your circumstances. But I do think that at the outset you may not even know!!

Fergus.

martinn123

creedp wrote: »

I'm going to give my one-off build view on sydthebeats summary in that in a perfect world if I was fully aware of the myriad of professional advice/advisors I could acquire to assist on my project then the summary might have been a useful template for me to follow. However, when I started off there was not a chance in hell I would have been in a position to assess whether or not I needed such professional services/assistance.

I think what martinn123 is saying about having a one stop shop to provide assistance to self-builders in relation to the benefits attached a whole range of these professional services and approx fee costs would be a huge benefit. Unfortunately its of no benefit to me now but I would dearly have liked to have access to such a service prior to starting out on the road.

Now there speaks a man who has through the process........with some pain.........

sydthebeat wrote:

i don't see how having a design team in place can in any way be off putting??? in actuality it should be the opposite. The client should sleep soundly at night knowing their dwelling is being looked after by the best possible team of professionals.

You are viewing this from the perspective of being ''in the business''

I am trying to put across the myriad of decisions, from a new-comer to a build, and seeing a line of Professionals, and the fees attached, is putting people off.

slig wrote:

If I was contracted by a client to "design" their house and I gave my fee of x. As an experienced Arch. Tech. I am compitent to carry out most if not all that is required to get the house built correctly but not to a level that a full design team would.

however, if I gave my client my fee and 2 weeks later came back and said that "we should appoint another professional to carry out another role at a price of x in addition to my fees" I know where I would be told to stick it. Many offices, especially now, dont have enough work for to keep a full design team on their books in house.

How do we compare your statment that you are compitent to carry out ''most if not all that is required'' with syd's list of professionals.

juantorena wrote:

and purely from an innovative or appropriateness perspective - architects (specifically) do in many cases short-change their client. Engaging an architect does not guarantee 'good design' and it may even be argued that it doesn't greatly increase the chances of receiving said design level.

and I have been accused of being anti-architect in the past????

FergusD wrote:

I think that maybe the professionals are presuming a level of knowledge amongst the "average" self builder which just doesn't exist. When you start down this road you don't know enough to make the right decision at the outset. You may know nothing about vast sections of the build.

Speaking for myself, when you're starting a build and looking at all the possible costs, you ask yourself if you need to incur them or can you avoid them. This applies to everything from design on. There are different levels of engagement for different self builders and some (including myself) may try to avoid some of the costs.

thanks FergusD, this sums it up perfectly.

sydthebeat

FergusD wrote: »

Speaking for myself, when you're starting a build and looking at all the possible costs, you ask yourself if you need to incur them or can you avoid them. This applies to everything from design on. There are different levels of engagement for different self builders and some (including myself) may try to avoid some of the costs. So to my mind there are two different angles to this:

1). For a totally green/don't get your hands dirty self builder you need a full team.
2). For someone who is interested/technically minded/willing to put in some work/reading/etc. what costs can they avoid? The answer to this is totally subjective and depends on the strengths of the self builder and where they see their priorities lying.

thats exactly my point....

Juantorena

martinn123 wrote: »

....and I have been accused of being anti-architect in the past????....

But I'm not anti-architect. Going into my build I was a great (and isolated) proponent of the profession amongst my skeptical/cynical work colleagues. What I am in favour of is 'good' architects and 'good' architecture - again, whatever that 'good' may mean.

I think in part - if I'm honest - architecture should be a bit of a vocation. An outsiders view clearly but there are many professions and trades out there that can ensure a structurally sound and efficient building is erected. I'd propose an architects job is to mould and advance it's internal and external environments to improve the lives (in the grand sense) of the occupiers and the general passing public.

I don't have to make a crust out of designing houses so it's an idealised view I put forward. There are many hindrances to getting 'good' architecture out there - I'd suggest architects are one of them.

Slig

martinn123 wrote: »

Now there speaks a man who has through the process........with some pain.........



You are viewing this from the perspective of being ''in the business''

I am trying to put across the myriad of decisions, from a new-comer to a build, and seeing a line of Professionals, and the fees attached, is putting people off.




How do we compare your statment that you are compitent to carry out ''most if not all that is required'' with syd's list of professionals.



and I have been accused of being anti-architect in the past????




thanks FergusD, this sums it up perfectly.

By compitent I mean that, to an extent I can get the job done to the required quality. I may not produce as good a design as an architect, I would vastly oversize structural elements or keep opes to standard sizes, something an engineer would do much better at. I can design a standard mech & elec layout and explain the different components to a client but if more unconventional systems are being used a services engineer would be better.

I'm not advocating an Arch tech over an engineer in this, as I said previously experience is key but for the best result obviously the best professionals in each field should be used. For most people its a once off cost that should be well worth the investment.

therightangle

FergusD wrote: »

Once I got planning, I knew I needed info on energy/etc. so engaged an energy consultant which for me was a total waste of money. A preliminary BER would have left me in the same situation. I ended up doing a lot of research myself after this "report" and made my own choices on build type and insulation/air tightness levels.

Once I had my energy info, I looked for a quote from a builder who basically told me I didn't have enough info and he needed an engineer to specify things before he could quote.
.....
I went back to the builder and others with my new set of info. I now had planning drawings, energy spec and engineers specification.

Hi FergusD,

Sorry to hear the energy consultant didnt work out for you but Im glad you mentioned that input as I think it hasnt been prioritised adequately in this debate.

My opinion is that the energy knowledge is required early on before pricing, as what is the point in wasting time designing and pricing a layout/spec that does not comply with Building Regulations (Part L) and may jeopardise your chance of getting sign-off/mortgage final payment?

Should this debate not include the advice that hired professional help should be BER qualified and therefore be able to advise on whether their design complies with Part L?
At the start, rather than trying to add extra panels etc after?

muffler

therightangle wrote: »

Should this debate not include the advice that hired professional help should be BER qualified and therefore be able to advise on whether their design complies with Part L?
At the start, rather than trying to add extra panels etc after?

No, the topic is

So can I invite comments on anyone's interaction with an Architect, etc the level of service agreed, and perhaps the Fees involved.

martinn123

sydthebeat wrote: »

i don't see how having a design team in place can in any way be off putting??? in actuality it should be the opposite. The client should sleep soundly at night knowing their dwelling is being looked after by the best possible team of professionals.

If im sick id rather have the best consultants / surgeons working my case than just the local GP.

The 'design team' dont all have equal status where there's no hierarchy. There is a design team leader, who is the contract administrator, and the other professionals are basically sub contractors;' similar to a main contractor and sub contractors. The engineer has a role, the technician as well, etc etc. Even within this team there exists the mech and elec engineers ie the mechanical ventilation, the heat pump etc. They all communicate with each other during the design of the technical aspect of the build, so everything is ironed out before the issues arise on site. In this way, savings are made, both on time and on outlay... add these all through the project and the design team more than pays for itself!!

OK, so to move this along a bit, assuming we go down the ''Team'' route, which I have to admit makes some sense, what do we budget for Fees.Now I know its how long is a piece of string but to borrow a quote from another thread,

sydthebeat wrote:

NEARLY CHOKED THERE !!!what professional fees are entailing 11% of the build costs??

No one has posted...yet....that they have followed this template, so I can't ask the question, in an active situation, but what would be a reasonable amount to Budget? for such a Team of Professionals..

sydthebeat

what to budget for is so specific to the individual project as to make any assumptions here worthless.

As ive said before, if its a shoebox being built with all standard details then 1 professional engagement could be a "catch all".... ie design, planning, tendering, energy consultation, specing structural elements, certifying stages, signing off..... also the size of the project will affect the per cent basis of pricing, with the smaller the project the higher the percentile fees.

The more 'off standard' the design, the more specialist the engagement....

In general, if i was advising someone completely "green" on what to budget for professional services for say a 2000 sq ft basic turn key build, at €100 per sq ft, for full service where the client appoints the contractor and subsequently is handed the keys..... id say budget about 5% for professional fees.

Now compare this to standard 10-12% professional fees for state funded public projects such as community builds, schools, creches etc.