Architects costs

Originally Posted by TazDaz

+1 for architects being nonces. The few I have been in contact with through work don't seem to understand the concept of money and the lack thereof, and they don't even use standard bloody scales which really annoys me!

Seems like an expensive way to go...does the .Org have an EuroMillions winner amongst us?!

http://www.architect-yourhome.com/costEstimator.asp

The above link may give you an indication, but I've honestly got no idea. I just haven't met an architect which I thought was worthwhile speaking to and in typical British fashion I've tarred them all with the same brush!!!

I take offence at your first sentence my grandfather, father and uncle were architects, and my sister is an Architectural Technician. If you don't understand their charges then you need to look into what it takes to qualify, run a business, pay staff etc.

Originally Posted by Captain Nemo

if architects are c***s are not, its not as simple as just knocking some plans up, otherwise every daffy who could use cad would be knockin some up, its hard enough yo get planning without presenting a planning authority something that looks like you dont know what youre doing, you need someone who speciailizes in housing, not neccesarily an architect put someone whos used to dealing with planning and preferably has a good relationship with the planning inspectors, nothing going to cause you more problems than ****e plans,

they need to know the building regs inside out, you dont need an architect but you do need someone who understands why rooms have to be certain minimum sizes, why doors and windows are in certain places and just why you cant put an open plan staircase there, im a civil engineer , i have a hnc in building and have previously done plans and had them through planning and construction, buti wouldnt want to do it now, cos despite doing it succesfully before the regs have changed so much id be back and forth to planning all the time trying to give them what they want,

if youre serious, ask around someone will know someone local,

Sensible post unlike some ignorant and insulting ones in this thread

Im a Civil Engineer and deal with buildings all the time, but house building is specialised. I had an extension and bits done to my house a few years ago and while I think I am quite capable of doing the plans I wanted it to run smoothly, so I hired someone who does it week in week out. If you know amyone who has had work done speak tot he and who they used. You can also speak to your Planning Authority and they should have a list of people that they regularly deal with and could give you.

Trust me, you only want to go through planning and building inspections once. making mistakes at these stages will turn your project into a money pit.

Originally Posted by Luckypants

WRT Architects I do not agree with the general comments on here that they are bad people.

Calm down there lucky I think you an Arty have taken those comments a little too much to heart. Engineers dont like architects in the same way architects wont like engineers. There is a famous cartoon sketch depicting the different ideals of these professions (i'll find it shortly) but basically the resentment comes from Architects who produce marvelous and as you say inspiring spaces on paper which promts a client to require an engineer to then detail. An architect can draw a building within building regs but all that drawing is is essentially a piece of art. It takes details of material connections, stuctural calcs of bending moments and shear stress's plus a million other considerations before the drawings can be considered constructable. From an engineers point of view architects are a pain in the ass cos they make us look like the kill joys/boring fecks as its us who have to tell the client "Im sorry but for £500 we simply cant design and build a floating stairwell out of candy floss even though yes it would be amazing" If architects had a bit more of a grip on reality rather than drew thing artistically then maybe the engineer architect relationship would be a more balanced one. Until then engineers will be forced to look bad by the architects pretty pictures and the architects will be frustrated by the constricted nature of an engineer.

I agree with leedsmatt to a certain extent, i only use them on a smaller scale but i will give my opinion anyway.
Example from the kitchen extension i have just finished...

1, Plans said for a flush ceiling in regards to steel spanning the whole width of kitchen and then another perpendicular to that so effectively taking corner of house out, the architect (and yes he was a proper one) specified these as a 10" x 6" I beam and a smaller one on the inside (cant remember what size that was), now with 6x2 ceiling joists and no way of dropping ceiling, where is excess of beam supposed to go, upwards obviously, but he never went up stairs to see the bathroom directly above which was fully tiled and fitted with furniture and client didnt want to pay for all that to be done again.
Also, with the low pitch, the beam would, i think, have projected out of the roof tiles ???
So, i went to my structual engineer who laughed first, then just said (with calcs to back this up)just use 8" x 8" I beam and thats more than enough.
We still had to put a bulkhead in to enclose beams but client was fine with that as they hadnt asked for flush ceiling anyway???

2. He had drawn the plans showing the exterior walls right on the border of the adjoining property, so if you know anything about these things you know thats not possible.
It had a party wall act on it so party wall had to stay, with guttering and fascia board you need to come from border centre line around 6-7", even the neighbour involved noticed this, the architect didnt.

Im not having a go at all architects, i have seen some top work from them, but as leedsmatt said, sometimes they design stuff that cant be built.

Phil

[Dave20046]

Architects aren't ****s it's just hard to find a good one, and like has been said there's a lot of 'technicians' pretending to be architects.

Always go by a fixed price if possible or like tazdaz said pay at milestones.

[Luckypants]

I'm well aware of the friction that can exist between architects and engineers, I used to paddle with my architect friend mentioned and a civil (but not always) engineer who specialised in building work. Many of the boring flat bits of river were enlivened by **** taking on both sides about who makes a building work.

Matt, you are the one who took those comments to heart. All I said is I do not agree with the sweeping generalisations made in the thread. As this thread is about architects fees, I wanted to provide some balance to the view that architects live in cloud cuckoo land and charge exorbitant fees. IME they are actually bright, interesting and creative people and the ones I know are rooted in the real world.

[the_lone_wolf]

Originally Posted by Luckypants

I wanted to provide some balance to the view that architects live in cloud cuckoo land and charge exorbitant fees. IME they are actually bright, interesting and creative people and the ones I know are rooted in the real world.

We work with a lot of architects and they run the gamut from dour suited types to one guy who's mad as a box of frogs, and would design a house made of plasticine if you asked him to...

Almost all of them are nice people though, even if on the whole they are creative rather than technical

Only problem is they insist on using millimetres, I mean, come on... measuring a building in millimetres is like giving recipe ingredients in milligrams


Oh, and rpwoodman, if you''re still around in this thread now it's descended into chaos, give me a shout if you need a topographical survey carried out, I'm sure I can do you a decent price

Fair enough "calm down" was a **** poor choice of wording, it was a micheal winner calm down in my head but on forum its open to be read word for word. I appolgise mate I would have put a "lol" after your quote cos I liked how you used the phrase bad people but felt starting with a "lol" would seem condesending, as it happened my 2nd choice of wording was equally misinterprited anyway no harm done
I wouldnt have even posted the above had arty not stated she took offence, it was that which made me feel an explantion of my previous post was required.
Again no harm - no foul.

[Dave20046]

Originally Posted by leedsmatt7

Fair enough "calm down" was a **** poor choice of wording, it was a micheal winner calm down in my head but on forum its open to be read word for word. I appolgise mate I would have put a "lol" after your quote cos I liked how you used the phrase bad people but felt starting with a "lol" would seem condesending, as it happened my 2nd choice of wording was equally misinterprited anyway no harm done
I wouldnt have even posted the above had arty not stated she took offence, it was that which made me feel an explantion of my previous post was required.
Again no harm - no foul.

Bloody civil engineers