# Who is better to supervise a once off build - an Engineer or Architect?



## Brigid (5 Mar 2010)

Hi, We have to instruct an engineer or architect to supervise the construction of our house. From a practical point of view (limited budget) is it better to get an engineer or architect. What I have picked up from reading these treads, is that engineers may be good on the overall structure - will ensure the house is structurally sound but mightn't be too hot on the building regs or attention to detail, while architects will be very good at policing the regulations, but for me a question mark remains over their structural knowledge. Where does each professions expertise lie? Is it preferable, but not essential, to have both an architect and engineer on board - if you have one but not the other what will the compromises be? when I say limited budget, we don't want to get a number of professionals on board unnecessairly as it is just more fees. But if we did get both an engineer and an architect how do the responsibilities fall - maybe the answer to that question will answer all the rest! Is there any risk of both pointing fingers at one another if something goes wrong?

Many thanks in advance...


----------



## onq (6 Mar 2010)

Brigid said:


> Hi, We have to instruct an engineer or architect to supervise the construction of our house. From a practical point of view (limited budget) is it better to get an engineer or architect. What I have picked up from reading these treads, is that engineers may be good on the overall structure - will ensure the house is structurally sound but mightn't be too hot on the building regs or attention to detail, while architects will be very good at policing the regulations, but for me a question mark remains over their structural knowledge. Where does each professions expertise lie? Is it preferable, but not essential, to have both an architect and engineer on board - if you have one but not the other what will the compromises be? when I say limited budget, we don't want to get a number of professionals on board unnecessairly as it is just more fees. But if we did get both an engineer and an architect how do the responsibilities fall - maybe the answer to that question will answer all the rest! Is there any risk of both pointing fingers at one another if something goes wrong?
> 
> Many thanks in advance...



Brigid,

Retain both, without any equivocation.

Structural and Civil Engineers design structures and foundations, beam and truss design, walling, retaining walls and may also advise on drainage and Waste treatment systems.

Mechanical and Electrical Engineers advise on everything to do with services, from designing your  heating and plant control rooms to house heating systems to ventilation and heat recovery systems.

Architects specialise in form and design and also in weathering, ventilation, insulation and materials detailing as well as co-ordinating the location of structural elements and services runs and connection points aesthetically.

The engineer's fees will normally be a fraction of the archtiects unless you need to bridge a river to access the site.
Engineers moonlighting as architects will not be able to operate at the same level, if good contemporary, or authentic traditional design is what you want.

The Opinion of Compliance with Building Regulations is a document written, signed and issued by the architect and includes what are called schedule A assurances from other firms and persons involved in the build including:

the consulting engineer(s)
the main contractor
the sub-contractors
the specialist suppliers
the specialist installers
the fire detection and alarm system designer/installer
as well as guarantees from roofing contractors, etc.
Engineers are restricted by their PI cover to certifying only matters they are competent to certify.
So get both and architect and an engineer, and if you can stretch to an extra €500 or so, get am M&E to specify your services and snag them afterwards.

ONQ.

[broken link removed]

All advice on AAM is remote from the situation and cannot be relied upon as a defence or support - in and of itself - should legal action be taken.
Competent legal and building professionals should be asked to advise in Real Life with rights to inspect and issue reports on the matters at hand.


----------



## Superman (6 Mar 2010)

> Hi, We have to instruct an engineer or architect to supervise the construction of our house. From a practical point of view (limited budget) is it better to get an engineer or architect. What I have picked up from reading these treads, is that engineers may be good on the overall structure - will ensure the house is structurally sound but mightn't be too hot on the building regs or attention to detail, while architects will be very good at policing the regulations, but for me a question mark remains over their structural knowledge. Where does each professions expertise lie?


You've got the general gist of it. Note that whoever you employ, if something goes wrong, you can sue them. That's not great news if you want to avoid the hassle of litigation though.  Each professional is required to know where the limit of their competence is. If what you require goes beyond that competence, they must tell you and get another professional in. 



> Is it preferable, but not essential, to have both an architect and engineer on board - if you have one but not the other what will the compromises be?


Engineer compromises: depends on how "sophisticated" your design is: more likely to overlook details of your design that make the whole function better or look better.  Not likely to be a problem if your design is just a simple "roof tiles with PVC fascias and soffits bungalow" type thing though.
More likely to have an insufficient knowledge of Building Regs - esp. Part L (I'm guessing...also I'd be worried about a number of architects- the Regs are now in an almost permanent flux).

Architect: may have to get an Engineer involved. 
If incompetent, may not know s/he needs an Engineer...



> But if we did get both an engineer and an architect how do the responsibilities fall - maybe the answer to that question will answer all the rest!


It will depend on the contracts of service - ask to have these in writing.  As a general rule of thumb (which is dangerous to rely on...), structural stuff is the responsibility of the engineer (foundations, basements, roof trusses, cantilevers) and all residual responsibility will be the responsibility of the architect. If things go completely wrong, your lawyers will be suing both of them anyway.



Brigid said:


> Is there any risk of both pointing fingers at one another if something goes wrong?


Yes. In the worst case scenario, this doesn't matter too much as they either sort it out, or you sue them both and let the judge decide.
However if you appoint a single point of responsibility and require him to sub-contract (if necessary) any work related to the other specialisation, you don't have this issue.  
Unfortunately, you may need your solicitor to read your contract with whichever professional to ensure this is the case. 

As to your original question: Architect or Engineer.
It depends on your design.  
If it is a complicated and "architectural" design (basements, large internal open spaces, cantilevers)- you will require both.
If it is a very basic design (the average house you see in the countryside), either will do - with the caveats indicated above.  Why not get quotations from both, and ask to see what they've done in the past.

If it is somewhere in the middle, an Architect would be recommended, and let him/her decide if an Engineer is required. If you have questions about having a single point of responsibility, you can then deal with who engages the Engineer - you or the Architect.


----------



## LouisCribben (6 Mar 2010)

If someone hires an architect (and not a structural engineer),  will the architect always have to consult with a structural engineer ?

Would it be conceivable that a house could be built with no structural engineer input whatsoever ?


----------



## Brigid (6 Mar 2010)

thanks for that question Louiscribben ... my understanding is that if the architect deems it necessary to get an engineer on board then one is brought into the equation.  if he doesn't then he there could be no input from a qualified engineer at all. My concern is what if the architect doesn't spot a need for an engineer due to incompetance (or maybe arrogance!!) could the consequences be disastrous?  But I am a complete amature to this so I'm interested in hearing what appropriately qualifed posters have to say.


----------



## onq (6 Mar 2010)

LouisCribben said:


> If someone hires an architect (and not a structural engineer),  will the architect always have to consult with a structural engineer ?
> 
> Would it be conceivable that a house could be built with no structural engineer input whatsoever ?



Yes, it can be built with no engineer.

But in my opinion and experience you should retain both an architect and an engineer for anything other than houses with relatively simple plans, sections and structures.
Simple buildings can be designed by an architect following the rules of thumb for structural design shown in Part A of the building regulations which can in most cases safely be used to determine the structure.
However even with simple buildings, I strongly advise that the architect should always pay for a sheet of Engineers typical structural and drainage details on which to base his construction drawings.
Structural and drainage details are the basis for all other details on the General Arrangement Drawing set.
Anything outside this remit, including a raft foundation [generally anything with steel in it] required an engineers input.

---------------------------------

Architects and Engineers competences:

In my opinion you need an architect for the design work - without exception - and you need an engineer to sign off on the structure.

Yet I know some architects who pride themselves on their ability to design structure and for what it worth, I did four years of engineering in Bolton Street and got straight "B"s. That means I am competent to understand structural principles, and to review structures proposed by an engineers, but in project work I stick to what I'm best at and bring in other competent professionals.

Many sole trader architects have worked solo both in the past and in recent times resting previously on the experience and competence of the main contractor for traditional block builds and more latterly on the in-house engineers employed by the timber frame suppliers. However architects trained in traditional detailing from the 1980's era [Ulp! That's me!] may not be up to speed on the newer kinds of construction and more importantly on the difficulties that can arise when older meets newer meets newest in houses where sequential extensions of older property has occurred through the 20th century to today.

This is why architects like me have to engage in Continuous Professional Development to stay current. And sometimes when we investigate newer practices instead of being in awe we start pitying the poor people who can draw pretty drawings but have no clue about the principles involved in construction. Just wait five years and look at all the "natural" timber finishes looking so cute now. Untreated timber "silvers" to be sure, but seldom evenly and I have yet to see it look great - plus poorly chosen timber or inadequately sized members can crack and split - another "natural" process and one of the original reasons why people choose uPVC windows in the 1980's and 1990's. The other was the cost of painting/staining/varnishing the windows every 3-5 years. People forget all this now.

The consulting structural engineer usually designs the structure in detail, including a sheet of current standard construction details suitable for the construction we are undertaking
Sometimes we might design the broad layout of structure - when looking for a particular effect, like exposed steel tie beams - and the Engineer checks and signs off on it.
Sometimes its when we are doing something a little different, such as extending a room but running the ceiling straight through without a downstand beam.
Usually the Engineer's expertise saves money or time or reduces hazard by suggesting more cost-effective / speedier / safer means to achieve the desired end.
Both of us working together to co-ordinate our sets of drawings (i) before to seek tender or (ii) before proceeding to site should the client be proceeding with a builder he has used before and wants to use again.

The important thing in the latter case is to prepare such a builder, whose experience might have run to erecting simple concrete frame two storey shop units for the client and who would need to be focussed and if necessary shown examples of the standard of workmanship, placement, completion and care with both the interstitial and finished work that is required for a dwelling with sleeping accommodation.
Having a second competent professional on site also helps keep the builder in line and onside and avoids the 2 against 1 scenario that can sometimes occur with a builder from the client's pocket.
I normally request that the Engineer inspects the site and undertake trial holes if necessary, inspect the trenches [sometimes these can be combined if they know the area], the ground floor slab, first floor completion, topping out and drain commissioning.

Engineers fees for medium complexity houses from 100 to 500 sq.m. can run from 1000-5000 Euro  - or more depending on the total cost and the specialist.

HTH

ONQ.

[broken link removed]

All advice on AAM is remote from the situation and cannot be relied upon as a defence or support - in and of itself - should legal action be taken.
Competent legal and building professionals should be asked to advise in Real Life with rights to inspect and issue reports on the matters at hand.


----------



## Superman (6 Mar 2010)

Brigid said:


> My concern is what if the architect doesn't spot a need for an engineer due to incompetance (or maybe arrogance!!) could the consequences be disastrous?


Of course it could be potentially disastrous - you would then have to sue him.  It should be reasonably unlikely though.  
The most important question is how to avoid getting an architect who is incompetent - asking for references to projects they've done is important.


----------



## onq (6 Mar 2010)

Brigid said:


> thanks for that question Louiscribben ... my understanding is that if the architect deems it necessary to get an engineer on board then one is brought into the equation.  if he doesn't then he there could be no input from a qualified engineer at all. My concern is what if the architect doesn't spot a need for an engineer due to incompetance (or maybe arrogance!!) could the consequences be disastrous?  But I am a complete amature to this so I'm interested in hearing what appropriately qualifed posters have to say.



Brigid,

At some point you have to trust your professionals and contractor, but you don't have to walk into a new build blindfold, and each can watch the others for you.

The tried and tested methods still apply for all of them.
Look at what they've done from outside in general - a variety of their work.
Ask them for references or to see their work internally and close up and have a talk to some of their clients.

However some new concerns have recently arisen.
Ask them what their staffing levels are now compared to what they were a year ago - or when they were doing the job you're looking at.
There's likely to be a big difference between a well-oiled machine composed of 15-20 people a year or so ago and the remaining two people [usually the principals] feverishly trying to stay on top of the remaining jobs after having had to let their best staff go in the intervening period.

This applies to both professionals and builders.

At the very least the survivors may be emotionally traumatised by the past year "in the trenches" and they may now be operating without key technical personnel.
I'm not trying to discredit or undermine a firm of architects or engineers that may now be operating in such reduced circumstances.
However, it is possible that their current standard of service and attention to detail may have suffered.

Or course, the opposite could be true - you might find two people or one person hanging around an idle office just itching to be back in harness again and in a position to offer you the best service you can imagine.

And of course some offices didn't lose all their key personnel, they kept the best of them on 3-day weeks waiting for work like yours to turn up.

There are no hard and fast rules about what you'll find at the moment - each office may have been affected differently by the recession.
However in trying to advise you on the appointment of fellow professionals and it is important to make you aware of these possibilities.

Hopefully, in considering all the above you can see why I advise that its better - all else being equal - to have a second professional on board.
Assuming your team stays together until tender, you'll have a second professional to rely on in the event of sudden departures. 

HTH

ONQ.

[broken link removed]

All advice on AAM is remote from the situation and cannot be relied upon as a defence or support - in and of itself - should legal action be taken.
Competent legal and building professionals should be asked to advise in Real Life with rights to inspect and issue reports on the matters at hand.


----------



## onq (6 Mar 2010)

sacundai said:


> you will find a lot of engineers in the past sideline as architects and would have knowledge of both the architect who done my plans is and got me planning permission is actually day to day 9-5 an engineer.although the house hasnt been started yet.so maybe you might get someone like that.he might not be as hot on the regs as a fully fledged arch but should know enough to get you by without breaking any major regs



sacundai,

We strive for high standards of advice on AAM.
I realise you have made a choice and I accept that this may have worked out for you so far in terms of the service you have received.
However I have to question advice that appears to suggest its alright to retain a professional who might be acting outside his competence.

It isn't alright to do this in my opinion and you are not in a position to suggest that it isor to assess the competence of what he has already done, being a layperson.


Is there a level or ramped approach to the house on the drawings?
Is the front door the minimum width required for compliacne with Part M?
Is the toilet the right size for the floor area of the house in terms of disabled access?

I have referred both this post and your post for moderation in case I am being too severe.

HTH

ONQ.

[broken link removed]

All advice on AAM is remote from the situation and cannot be relied upon as a defence or support - in and of itself - should legal action be taken.
Competent legal and building professionals should be asked to advise in Real Life with rights to inspect and issue reports on the matters at hand.


----------



## Brigid (6 Mar 2010)

Many thanks for all this.  I am getting a much better picture and can understand better now why both an architect and engineer is advisable. Two more questions - who draws up the specifications and discusses with the client the preferences and who does the drawings - are both specs and structual drawings necessary in fact?  

Also, and this I hope won't be an awkward question... why does an architect command a higher fee(substantially sometimes) than an engineer?  Regardless as to which discipline I would instruct, if it was to be an either or situation, I would expect the same service.  I would expect that both would be able to supervise a build to ensure that it was structurally sound and compliant with building regs - in my situation planning permission has been obtained so the design is not be an issue.


----------



## onq (7 Mar 2010)

Brigid,

If you appoint both an architect and an engineer you will see that while structure is important, designing it is relatively straightforward once the design of the house is sorted.

The architect's duties and resposibilities extend from first to last on the project.
The architect takes all client meetings, which engineers seldom attend.
All the the design work is undertaken by the architect from initial briefing though to advising the client on kitchen fittings, and door ironmongery.

The architect co-ordinates the work of the design team, even the two man one under discussion here.
The architect and engineer both do drawings, but the engineer sticks to his speciality and the architect co-ordinates the drawings.
The client may decide to retain the engineer at an early stage, if there is a need for him to deal with specialist requriements from roads engineers on access, sightlines and traffic movements, or from environmental services in relation to surface water and waste water disposal.

The architect will  concern himself with designing the building proper, balancing the clients wishes with the planners requirements and his own desire to produce a well-designed product.
The architect will usually assemble, check and lodge the drawings from all professionals and lodge the planning application, including advising the client on seeking the Part V Exemption Certificate.

Both architect and engineer may produce drawings, each co-ordinated with the other and complementary, to be a part of the permission.
If the engineer is not retained until after planing permission is achieved - as is often the case - the architect does all the drawing work until this stage.
The architect develops an outline of the structural strategy at this stage to avoid problems later on and he will brief the engineer on the structiral strategy when he is appointed.
From permission to completion the engineer usually concerns himself with producing information on the structure and provides a structural engineers schedul A assurance for inclusion in the Opinion of Complianjce with Building Regulations.

The architect does erything else, including preparing Tender Drawings, Specification [on which he consults with the engineer], advice on selection of tenders, issuing construction details and general arrangement drawings, liaison with the plumber, electrician, heating controactor and all nominated and/or specialsit sub-contractors.
The archtiect administrates the contract and unless there is a Quantity Surveyor appointed, he will detemine the stage payments and certify monies to be paid.
Remember there are 12 Building Regulations and Structure is only one of tem, so he has a lot to do and puts a lot of his fee income into client meetings.
Drawings without specifications are near useless and up ot the minute product research is vital, particular where product failure may have occurred.

HTH

ONQ.

 [broken link removed]

 All advice on AAM is remote from the situation and cannot be relied upon as a defence or support - in and of itself - should legal action be taken.
 Competent legal and building professionals should be asked to advise in Real Life with rights to inspect and issue reports on the matters at hand.


----------

