Architect v Technician

What would you want to spend an extra 45k on?

It’s Kildare

twenty8,

That is a very interesting question and one that Architects are asked constantly. There is no doubt that a Technician will be, in the short term, more cost effective. So in paying larger fees to an Architect what will you get for your money?

A good Architect will be involved at an early planning stage, listening to what you want, and helping you create the perfect building for your needs. Working with you, developing ideas and suggesting new directions; helping you to realise your dream.

An Architect can guide you through the building and planning regulations and help you avoid costly mistakes. They can also co-ordinate engineers, builders and sub-contractors giving you one point of contact to save you time, and make sure things run smoothly.

A well designed building can save you money – a good architect will consider different materials and methods to reduce building and maintenance costs.

All Chartered Architects will have undergone 7 years of training at University enabling them to have tremendous skills at visualizing a whole project, homing in on the problems and offer dynamic solutions. Architects will have contacts with excellent builders and the finished work can add significant value to your property.

For the FEE an Architect will manage the project from start to finish, in most cases the TECHNICIAN will usually only offer a drawing only service. Most architects will expect the contractor to enter into a formal building contract giving you, the client rights and piece of mind that you are protected by the law.

45K does sound on the steap side, but then it is hard for me to comment because I dont have any idea as to the final construction cost of your design and of course and architect will usually charge based on a % of the final construction cost.

I hope this has been helpful, If you require any more information feel free to check out my website. We work all over Ireland.

Ryan Hood B.Sc B.Arch (QUB) RIBA
Architect
http://www.hbkarchitects.com

twenty8,

Many Architects make their living only designing one-off house projects. A large proportion of CLASSIC examples of international building designs over the years have been one-off houses. Architects can apply their skills to the MICRO and MACRO design scales. Good Principles of Design are relevant to all scales of design.

Ryan Hood B.Sc B.Arch (QUB) RIBA
Architect
http://www.hbkarchitects.com

A lot really depends on what you want yourself…

A qualified architect should be capable of producing a quality design which you should be happy with. Most have individual styles, which are generally reflected in in their designs… The same can of course apply to others who drawn or/design houses etc, be it engineers, architectural technicians etc,.

The best way to see who suites you is to see what they have done (designed)in the past… Some are more suited to designing houses than others.

It is probably obvious that an architect would be better at designing a house into context than an engineer or someone designing a house without visiting the site as would be the case with standard downloadable cad drawings.

Architects focus on design and primarliy delivering a client focussed solution as this is their brief however there are a number facotrs outside most architects sphere of expertise such as ground water conditions and proximity to heritage features.

Even the most expert architect will have problems designing a minimum impact house of 3000 sq ft which I would not consider relatively small by any stretch of the imagination. This would be further exacerbated if the subject site is in an upland area or close to a water source or is in any way proximate to any heritage features.

Some good general advice for those intended to develop any form of property is to get advice from an architect before acquiring the site.

3k sounds like a ridiculously small amount for anyone to be charging for the full service of obtaining planning, tendering, contract administration, site visits snagging etc which would be al inclusive in the percentage costs for full architectural services. Most people I know who are doing one off houses for people, whether technicians or architects (and either as nixers or otherwise) are charging at least 3k to bring a house of over 2000 sqft to planning stage and no further.
Whoever is offering to see your house to completion for that money is either doing you a serious favour or is severely inexperienced and does not have a clue how much work is involved in producng tender packages, construction packages, detail design and the general hassle of liasing with builders. Of course you could be planning to project manage the whole thing yourself in which case you’d probably be wise to look into how much time you’d need to take out of work (always much much more than you’d think) and to work out how much earnings you’d be losing as a result…
A good architect will invariably lead to a smoother, more successful project and wil increase your chances of getting exactly what you want for your money. Technicians / draftsmen / engineers are more likely to stick to the mundane and easy to achieve and you can guarantee your house will look exactly like about 500 other pvc covered horrors throughout the country.

@BTH wrote:

Technicians / draftsmen / engineers are more likely to stick to the mundane and easy to achieve and you can guarantee your house will look exactly like about 500 other pvc covered horrors throughout the country.

Definately true of alot of engineers and draftsmen, however the same can’t be said of the technician with an architectural backround…

Examples of houses designed by a south-east firm of architectural technologists.

Admittely they will properly charge fees along the same lines of a qualified architect.

Not bad examples jackscout. The only way anyone could produce a building like that and charge low fees would be to re-produce this house type over and over. That is where a good architect will differ. A good architect will endevour to design a unique building that is site specific and driven by their clients needs and the generators of the area. (ie. orientation, views in/out of site, access to the site, local character and style of existing buildings etc)

Ryan Hood B.Sc B.Arch (QUB) RIBA
Architect
http://www.hbkarchitects.com

It’s a broad question to ask, but roughly how much would an architect charge for designing an ‘average’ 4-bed 2000 sq ft house?
Is €45-50,000 about standard?

@Graham Hickey wrote:

It’s a broad question to ask, but roughly how much would an architect charge for designing an ‘average’ 4-bed 2000 sq ft house?
Is €45-50,000 about standard?

from inception to completion, somewhere around 30 grand.

Very reasonable.

gizza job?

Not that reasonable.

😀

careful now. i don’t offer such good rates to just anyone.

I’m quite happy with my personally designed home – I’m not sure there’s a single thing to be done to improve on it.

Thanks all the same though.

sure you don’t want an extra wing? maybe an ivory tower?

@sw101 wrote:

sure you don’t want an extra wing?

Don’t you have to be in the Georgian society for one of those? 🙁

@sw101 wrote:

an ivory tower?

And live in D4 for one of those 😀

It could only happen in Ireland that the work of the IGS has in no small way contributed to the architectural travesties about the place…

A wing is an interesting concept sw101, though it’d have to be balanced out with another opposite – I’m thinking sunroom…conservatory…fairy cake…I’ll leave it up to youself the expert to decide, with your notions and gobbledegook.
However the frilly fascias must be replicated to the last detail; they’re specially imported from foreign I’ll have you know – Wrexham Industrial Estate’s finest.

Like so many other threads this has deconstructed into smart alex like behaviour of people who should know better. Twenty8 asked some pertinent questions which have been lost in the foray into slagging. The difficulty that many clients have in choosing the correct advice for a project they will probably only undertake once in their lives is not something to be belittled. Especially in an aesthetic environment that is so undifferentiated as Ireland. Especially where there is no registration and no enforcement of basic Building regulations.

@shadow wrote:

Like so many other threads this has deconstructed into smart alex like behaviour of people who should know better. Twenty8 asked some pertinent questions which have been lost in the foray into slagging. The difficulty that many clients have in choosing the correct advice for a project they will probably only undertake once in their lives is not something to be belittled. Especially in an aesthetic environment that is so undifferentiated as Ireland. Especially where there is no registration and no enforcement of basic Building regulations.

it’s too early in the morning for that sort of ranting.

I think much of the problem here in Ireland is to due to the fact of the ” book of house plans” which most ordinary folk who want to build a house buy, along with the site and before they go to anyone to design (or reproduce) a house:- their ideas are pretty much defined without taking into consideration the charactor of the site.

I am of the opinion that a house which is suited to the site can be designed without breaking the bank and not necessarily requiring the serivces of a qualified architect, if people sought some advise from qualified/experinced persons before they bought the site or considered what they wanted… From experience “the box is already defined” for many before they talk to anyone.

Even reading Cork COCO Rural Design Guide would be a start in the right direction, where the house is in a rural setting for most.

Agreed Shadow, apologies – though when you say ‘like so many other threads’, I’d argue that in fact exceptionally few decend into any frivolility.

Considering the apparently reasonable cost of architects, it is surprising more people don’t avail of their services, especially with one-off houses where the land acquisition and building costs usually fall far short of the value of the finished property – and even more especially in light of such buildings’ impact on the landscape.
The few Local Authorities that now publish guidelines is a start at least.