# Some architects (and other professionals) think the world owes them a living



## RIAD_BSC (6 Jan 2011)

Some architects on this site, and elsewhere, are constantly moaning about a "race to the bottom" on price, fees and quality. They are unhappy at being undercut, they want prices to be somehow artificially inflated, and they have their heads in the sand when it comes to current market reality. They want price control, market control, and they are in denial in my opinion.

I also have a big problem with scare stories (peddled here and elsewhere) by vested interests regarding other architects who have faced up to market reality, and who have slashed prices to bring in business/cashflow, and to ultimately survive. _("Don't go for the cheap guy because your house will probably fall down. He must be a charlatan at that price. Beware, or you'll be sorry. Go for the higher-priced guy, because he must be kosher.)_ That sort of thing.

I think this sort of stuff taints the advice given to some punters, because the advice has a hidden agenda, a subtext, which is to further the lot of architects and artificially boost prices. I don't like it, and it should be highlighted for what it is - spin.

Ireland is overflowing with architects, all of whom are hungry for work, because there is very little of it out there. That's tough if you are an architect with bills to pay, really tough - and those of us lucky enough to have a bit of an income should sympathise. But it is great if you are a consumer looking for an architect, or a photographer, or a graphic designer, or whatever you're having yourself. Prices are a fraction of what they were during the boom. Hurray!

I recently sought prices from several architects - all RIAI registered and qualified - to design a modest extension to my home (design only). The range in prices was unbelieveable for essentially the same service (all of them said they were pitching for the business according to RIAI guidelines). From well under €1,500 incl VAT to €6,000-plus-VAT-plus-a-moxy-load-for-spurious-miscellaneous-unspecified-"expenses".

Some of these guys have faced market reality, and some haven't. All of them have the same letters after their name. All would provide references. All would have to file designs adhering to the same building codes and regulations. Standards might differ, but not by more than six grand's worth.

Architects prices are so low because there is way, way too many of them. The low prices will drive many of them out of business or else abroad - mainly the ones who won't roll with current pricing trends, the really bad ones, and the ones who refuse to adapt to current market reality. Only then will the market stabilise. It is simple economics. Ireland needs to shed lots of architects for the future sustainability of the profession. Hacked clean for better bearing, as Thomas Kinsella said.

But you know what? That's not our problem.

The best one that I have heard is the architect who thinks that prices should be artificially bumped up because s/he went to college - "a reward for third-level education". So did half the rest of us, boss. What do you want? Government price control?

In the meantime, consumers, let's make hay while the sun shines. Don't be put off by people who say to you that it is unfair on poor architects that you have hired a guy at a price that they view as too low. We are not obliged to maintain whatever lifestyles or cost bases they have chosen to have for themselves. These same people wouldn't have thought twice about charging you a high price during the boom, because the market would have allowed them to. Now the market works in our favour. A pendulum swings both ways.

Consumers now have real power when it comes to retaining professional services of all shapes and sizes. Let's use that power, to demand higher quality, as well as lower prices. Let's see how far that envelope can be pushed. The cheapest guy is not always the most shoddy, and the most expensive guy is not always the best quality.

The profitability of those professionals is their responsibility, not ours.


----------



## MrMan (7 Jan 2011)

There is some merit in what you say, but also while professionals try to  justify maintaining high prices with spin as you say yourself the same  is also true of consumers. 
The spin on the other side of the coin is that, the cheaper guy is just  being more competitive with his prices because he has just worked on  tighter margins more in line with market realities. It would benefit  readers to acknowledge that if a price is unbelievably in your favour  then shortcuts are inevitably taken. Initially when there is a downturn  in business then prices drop and quality is maintained in order to  survive. When your prices drop to the extent that business is  unsustainable then short-cuts are taken and basically anything is done  to survive.


----------



## Firefly (7 Jan 2011)

MrMan said:


> Initially when there is a downturn  in business then prices drop and quality is maintained in order to  survive. When your prices drop to the extent that business is  unsustainable then short-cuts are taken and basically anything is done  to survive.



I think this would assume that there are other opportunities for increasing your income, such as doing different types of work. However, if there is nothing out there, then perhaps unemployed architects (with no overheads and plenty free time) will drop down to what established practices deem as too low in order to get some money in the door. I think this will only go on for so long though...unemployed architects will either have to emigrate or re-train into something else. Those with top experience, references and deep pockets should be able to ride it out. 
Finally, personally speaking as a future client of an architect, I certainly won't be looking for the cheapest quote, if you can afford to build it IMO (and build it well), you can afford to get the best people involved in building it.


----------



## MrMan (7 Jan 2011)

Firefly said:


> I think this would assume that there are other opportunities for increasing your income, such as doing different types of work. However, if there is nothing out there, then perhaps unemployed architects (with no overheads and plenty free time) will drop down to what established practices deem as too low in order to get some money in the door. I think this will only go on for so long though...unemployed architects will either have to emigrate or re-train into something else. Those with top experience, references and deep pockets should be able to ride it out.
> Finally, personally speaking as a future client of an architect, I certainly won't be looking for the cheapest quote, if you can afford to build it IMO (and build it well), you can afford to get the best people involved in building it.



No overheads would assume no insurance, and no tax, so then we are choosing the black economy.


----------



## RIAD_BSC (7 Jan 2011)

The most expensive isn't always the best, either. If some architect with no work on takes on your project for a song to generate cashflow, who's to say they won't give it just as much attention as Mr Big Swinging Architect who still parties like it's 2006? They'll have nowt else to do.

As for the black economy, that's a convenient old red herring. It is perfectly legal to pay someone cash for a job - it is the state's legal tender. Paying tax out of that cash is the architect's responsibility. This one can't be pinned on consumers.

Some members of the architectural profession need to wake up. Others have woken up already, which is why they've slashed their prices, their cost bases and their expectations for a standard of living.

Consumers still win out, and that's a good thing, unless you're an architect.


----------



## Firefly (7 Jan 2011)

MrMan said:


> No overheads would assume no insurance, and no tax, so then we are choosing the black economy.



I agree. I don't  condone it esp for something as important as your house design, but it must be happening all the same.


----------



## Staples (7 Jan 2011)

MrMan said:


> No overheads would assume no insurance, and no tax, so then we are choosing the black economy.


 
It wouldn't necessarily assume no tax. All unemployed people are entitled to work casually as long as they inform the welfare authorities who will deduct payment in respect of the days worked. All such income is also subject to tax. 

An architect has the same tax obligations regardless of whether he's running a thriving business or working on a piecemeal basis out of his boxroom. Whether they choose to comply is a matter between them and Revenue.


----------



## MrMan (7 Jan 2011)

RIAD_BSC said:


> The most expensive isn't always the best, either. If some architect with no work on takes on your project for a song to generate cashflow, who's to say they won't give it just as much attention as Mr Big Swinging Architect who still parties like it's 2006? They'll have nowt else to do.
> 
> As for the black economy, that's a convenient old red herring. It is perfectly legal to pay someone cash for a job - it is the state's legal tender. Paying tax out of that cash is the architect's responsibility. This one can't be pinned on consumers.
> 
> ...


The most expensive isn't neccessarily the best as you say and I have already agreed with you on this, it's just that consumers like to make themselves feel better by spinning the old' sure its a buyers market' when hunting down the cheapest (not neccessaril;y best value) end price.

The black economy is far from a red herring, it is most definitely a factor and it does affect society. I'm not preaching, i'm just accepting that if I look for a cash job then I'm basically opening the door for a cheaper price for me and tax dodging for the guy employed. To simply say that paying tax is the other persons problem is to make oneself feel better about it. If you look for a 'cash price' you are looking after no.1


----------



## MrMan (7 Jan 2011)

Staples said:


> It wouldn't necessarily assume no tax. All unemployed people are entitled to work casually as long as they inform the welfare authorities who will deduct payment in respect of the days worked. All such income is also subject to tax.
> 
> An architect has the same tax obligations regardless of whether he's running a thriving business or working on a piecemeal basis out of his boxroom. Whether they choose to comply is a matter between them and Revenue.



In fairness assumptions aren't black and white, there are just best guess scenarios and if an out of work professional is offering to do a job way below employed competitors, my best guess is that it is for cash in hand.


----------



## Firefly (7 Jan 2011)

MrMan said:


> To simply say that paying tax is the other persons problem is to make oneself feel better about it. If you look for a 'cash price' you are looking after no.1



And you're participating in the Black Economy...you're just not legally at fault.


----------



## Staples (7 Jan 2011)

MrMan said:


> To simply say that paying tax is the other persons problem is to make oneself feel better about it. If you look for a 'cash price' you are looking after no.1


 
What if you simply ask for a "price" and pay what's asked?  Are you still obliged to lay awake at night wondering if the amount was declared for tax?


----------



## Firefly (7 Jan 2011)

Staples said:


> What if you simply ask for a "price" and pay what's asked?  Are you still obliged to lay awake at night wondering if the amount was declared for tax?



No problem asking for a price or even paying in cash. If you're worried about whether or not you're participating in the black economy, best to ask for a receipt for the work done. If it's a "cash price" you won't get one!


----------



## RIAD_BSC (7 Jan 2011)

Does anyone here know roughly how much a sole trading architect might have to pay annually in liability insurance? Or can they purchase insurance by the project?


----------



## mf1 (7 Jan 2011)

Can we try and look at this in a wider context? 

I'm a solicitor so I am very well aware of the issues of pricing a professional service. Before any professional person ( and by professional I am largely focussing on the issues of compliance with accepted standards, payment of professional indemnity insurance, payment of taxes,  and general office management with a view to staying in business to provide the ongoing professional back up that goes with a professional service) takes on any client, they will be indebted to their professional body, their insurer, their staff if they have any and the Revenue. So there will always be a basic costs foundation upon which their fees will be constructed.

From my own perspective, there is a fee floor below which I am subsidising a client and running at a significant loss. That makes no commercial sense and increases the risk, if I chose to  cost my services below that floor, that I will not be around to assist a client with ongoing issues. 

I think the biggest issues I see with what I call below cost selling are

1. The devaluation of the professional service offered - oh, I can get it done for half that. It happens every day to me- and the answer - go get it. But don't be hoping that I will match that price because I won't. 
2. The risk that we ruin an entire profession so that it becomes an unattractive option for students
3. And we don't have providers for that service.

As regards architects, I am horrified by many of the posters on this board who seek professional guidance for "takeaway" prices. I call it the "I want it cheap, I want it now, and I also want the full (value) indemnity when or if it hits the fan" mentality.

I personally want to deal with my professional advisors ( be they accountants, tax advisors, architects , engineers , professional witnesses etc.,etc ) for consistency and  on a decent  price for a decent job. I rely heavily on personal recommendations and won't go on a price only. 

If it looks too good to be true..........

This is a perennial issue - it goes around and around. In good times and in bad. 

mf


----------



## Vanilla (7 Jan 2011)

Great post by mf1. 

As a solicitor too, I can see how a cheap service may not always be the best service. I see this every day in practice. Sometimes I am baffled and horrified by the poor service provided by other professionals. Now a high price is not an indicator of a good service- but a low price can be a warning sign. That is because if one professonal offers a service at an unusually low price they could be cutting corners to do this. 

The problem with profesional services is that it is very difficult for the average client to know if they are getting a good service or not because there is a field of expertise involved. Sometimes it is only years later that a client will see how they have benefited, perhaps with contrasting poor advice or service.

My father recently discussed a bill with me that he had recieved from an accountant- the bill was around 15,000- I told him the advice he had recieved was invaluable and I will be making referrals to that accountant- he was excellent. 


Like mf1, I would be a big advocate of personal recommendation when it comes to choosing a service. I'm happy to live and die by my reputation, so should others be.


----------



## RIAD_BSC (7 Jan 2011)

mf1 and Vanilla - if I was a solicitor like both of you, I might have the same idea. And if a professional of any hue can charge above the market rate and stay in business, then best of luck to them. Charge as high as the market will bear, I say.

My beef is that some architects and other professionals complain that the market rate is unfair, and encourage consumers on AAM and elsewhere to pay above this. That is bad advice, and also biased advice. The market rate has nothing to do with unfairness. That's like complaining the weather is unfair. It is pointless. It just is the way it is. Nobody has a right to stay in business.

Markets rates only ever go below cost when there are too many providers. When this happens, the worst providers are driven out of business, and prices stabilise. This is what must happen to architecture and many other professional services. There are just way too many architects/photographers/heck, even lawyers (barristers at any rate.... i am not sure the same applies to solicitors - mf1?). The low rates will clear 

mf1 - you have a fair point re fixed costs for a business such as a solicitor's practice, and fixed costs must be met. If you can cover your cost base and make a profit, then you should never sell below cost. If you can afford to tell customers to go elsewhere, then good for you.

But what if you can't? Many architects cannot afford to tell customers to go elsewhere. If they do, they'll have no work. They'll have high prices, and no turnover. In that situation, there is a logical commercial decision to be taken - you take the decision (once you have axed your cost base to the bone) to below-cost sell for a period to bring in cash through the business.

It is perfectly logical. Businesses don't survive on profits, they survive on cashflow. You can be profitable and still go bust if you don't have cashflow. If you have sufficient cashflow, even if you are unprofitable, you will survive for a period. That's what many of these cheap architects are trying to do.


----------



## Staples (7 Jan 2011)

mf1 said:


> I think the biggest issues I see with what I call below cost selling are
> 
> 2. The risk that we ruin an entire profession so that it becomes an unattractive option for students


 
Ah come off it. Professionals acting in the interest of potential competition?

The reality is that there is restricted entry to most professional bodies as a means of controlling supply. Even the leaving cert points system flucutates in response to numbers seeking entry to in any given year. It's not a quality control thing - it's a numbers game.

I'd agree that a low price isn't everything but it's consideration. The best electrician I ever used was also the cheapest while some of the young turks who characterised the Celtic years charged high and were bad to the point of being dangerous.

On the other hand, the best solicitor I know is almost one of the most expensive but he's not the best BECAUSE he's expensive.


----------



## MrMan (8 Jan 2011)

Staples said:


> What if you simply ask for a "price" and pay what's asked?  Are you still obliged to lay awake at night wondering if the amount was declared for tax?



You are not obliged to do anything, I'm just hoping that people can use common sense and realise that when they whine about the waste of taxes by govt etc, that they understand that their argument rings a little hollow as they like most people tend to suit themselves.


----------



## MrMan (8 Jan 2011)

RIAD_BSC said:


> mf1 and Vanilla - if I was a solicitor like both of you, I might have the same idea. And if a professional of any hue can charge above the market rate and stay in business, then best of luck to them. Charge as high as the market will bear, I say.
> 
> My beef is that some architects and other professionals complain that the market rate is unfair, and encourage consumers on AAM and elsewhere to pay above this. That is bad advice, and also biased advice. The market rate has nothing to do with unfairness. That's like complaining the weather is unfair. It is pointless. It just is the way it is. Nobody has a right to stay in business.



I think the beef is that what you consider to be the market rate is just the lowest price available. Anything above that price is not 'above market rates' because you need to consider the level of service and as mf1 has said the level of back up service provided.


----------



## Lak (8 Jan 2011)

I have worked with architects who produce excellent detailed drawings, with full specification and make regular site visits to ensure all works are compliant, in so far as there are no independant building inspectorate in Ireland.
On the other hand I have worked with Architects who proffer plans that could have been bettered by a 15 year old in technical drawing class, devoid of any spec, that look like they have been knocked up on a free version of Google Sketch on sheets of A4 with one site visit on commencement and a second on signing of for completion, and this is during the boom years.
The latter over the former wil be far more prevalent when choosing an Architect if your criterea for hiring starts with price alone, its blindingly obvious.
This is true of the Architect, the Blocklayer, the plasterer.... they need to make money but the client wants the best service for breadline payments, so the employed individual is clearly not going to give the level of excellence if his wage is poor, The blocklayer for example who might lay 300 a day if being paid well for it will now lay 500 if the prices are slashed in half, what suffers...quality.
Of course those paying the slashed costs are the ones who scream the loudest about the level of service they receive in  very selective statements of fact.


----------



## censuspro (10 Jan 2011)

John Ruskin addressed situations like these when he said:

_"The common law of business balance prohibits paying a little and getting a lot -- it can't be done. If you deal with the lowest bidder, it is well to add something for the risk you run, and if you do that you will have enough to pay for something better."_

This appeals to those who believe or those who want to persuade others that price is the best indicator of quality.

However, on the flip side of that coin is an example of a Big 4 accountancy firm that charges €2500 for a simple VAT registration. This is one of the most basic tasks that is carried out by a trainee accountant at a maximum of 30 mins work. Alot of smaller accountancy firms would not even charge for this service and yet the outcome is exactly the same - there are no potential different outcomes for this service if it was provided by a Big 4 firm or a smaller firm however, the Big 4 firms have positioned themselves in the market where they are able to charge those fees and people are willing to pay them because they feel they are getting the best service. Ultimately the decision comes down to the consumer and caveat empor always applies.


----------



## onq (10 Jan 2011)

RIAD_BSC said:


> Some architects on this site, and elsewhere, are constantly moaning about a "race to the bottom" on price, fees and quality. They are unhappy at being undercut, they want prices to be somehow artificially inflated, and they have their heads in the sand when it comes to current market reality. They want price control, market control, and they are in denial in my opinion.


I haven't raised my prices for commercial residential work [housing estates] by more than 5% since 1998.
Up until this year, I welcomed competition because it usually meant i had a chance at attracting more clients.
But this year was a disaster - while I have no problem being undercut, I cannot work for fees that don't cover my costs.
I realise it might be a shock to see someone in the professions  drawing attention to the undermining nature of market-led prices.
The essence of business is to make enough today to allow you to continue in business tomorrow - if fee income falls below a certain threshold, you are out of business.



> I also have a big problem with scare stories (peddled here and elsewhere) by vested interests regarding other architects who have faced up to market reality, and who have slashed prices to bring in business/cashflow, and to ultimately survive. _("Don't go for the cheap guy because your house will probably fall down. He must be a charlatan at that price. Beware, or you'll be sorry. Go for the higher-priced guy, because he must be kosher.)_ That sort of thing.


A sinkie might survive AND run a business profitably on €25,000, but not someone with a family.


> I think this sort of stuff taints the advice given to some punters, because the advice has a hidden agenda, a subtext, which is to further the lot of architects and artificially boost prices. I don't like it, and it should be highlighted for what it is - spin.


There is no spin in what I write - I don't tend to mix professional advice with comment on fee levels.
I have offered my clear opinion as to why fees below a certain level  cannot be entertained and backed it up with a worked example in this post.
You have offered not one word of rebuttal, preferring instead to invoke "market forces" and it now seems clear that you cannot make a case against it.

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

I give professional competent FREE advice here on AAM based both on my qualification as an architect and the expertise I have gained over the past twenty years.
The agenda behind this FREE advice is clear; 


to offer competent advice to those in difficulties
 to advise people of the pitfalls of the professions and the construction world
 to show them the tried and tested ways of bringing matters to a successful resolution for all concerned
  I make no excuse for wanting to be paid commensurately in Real Life for my skills or for making AAM readers aware that there is a danger in undermining a profession to the point where competent service is unlikely to be given.
I have offered substantially similar advice to posters on AAM about builders, warning them to avoid suspiciously low tenders.
I don't hear you complaining about that part of my posts, since you seem to have made a study of them.


> Ireland is overflowing with architects, all of whom are hungry for work, because there is very little of it out there. That's tough if you are an architect with bills to pay, really tough - and those of us lucky enough to have a bit of an income should sympathise. But it is great if you are a consumer looking for an architect, or a photographer, or a graphic designer, or whatever you're having yourself. Prices are a fraction of what they were during the boom. Hurray!


I would have no problem with even the €500 fee allowed for by another poster if prices in every sector of the economy had also dropped by 75% but they haven't.
Dropping the bottom out of any market means there will be a huge loss of skills in that market, leading to a lower overall quality of services, which, because of the long lead in times to achieve professional competence it will take any profession time to recover.
In the meantime poor service will be available because the normal grading and interlocking graduated hierarchies of experience and abilities will be gone.
Huge gaps will open up in the service or profession caused by people leaving it.
Unless fees are maintained at some level of profitability this flight of talent and expertise will mean that when the market returns, the necessary professional services based won't be there and the market will be rife with cowboys charging what they like for substandard services.
If you want sustainable growth in any service or profession, you have to smooth out the excesses which are what cause the structural damage.


> I recently sought prices from several architects - all RIAI registered and qualified - to design a modest extension to my home (design only). The range in prices was unbelieveable for essentially the same service (all of them said they were pitching for the business according to RIAI guidelines). From well under €1,500 incl VAT to €6,000-plus-VAT-plus-a-moxy-load-for-spurious-miscellaneous-unspecified-"expenses".


I have no problem with those prices for an extension - €1,500 is a little tight if its to design it and lodge a permission and its too low to take it to site.
My problem in the previous thread was with the client's fee estimate of  €500 for designing an entire house and lodging a planning application.
But this is an extension and your lowest fee offer was three times what the OP offered for designing and lodging an entire house!
So please don't misrepresent my concerns at below cost selling as undermining my competent advices given here on AAM.


> Some of these guys have faced market reality, and some haven't. All of them have the same letters after their name. All would provide references. All would have to file designs adhering to the same building codes and regulations. Standards might differ, but not by more than six grand's worth.


I think you'll find that there are differences between those offices in running costs, quality, experience and ability that could justify that difference in price.
The top end of €6,000 may sound high to some, but it all depends on what service you expect, and you usually get what you pay for.
A demanding client can run and architect ragged and take up almost all his time when the job is on site - €6,000 may actually be a little light.
To put this in perspective, the RIAI in the past year calculated its prices for the ARAE assessment on the basis of a charge our rate of €60 per hour.
€60 per hour is a charge out rate, not what an architect earns, its the business turnover and represents 100 hours of work by a mid range professional.
100 hours is under three weeks work, which for a demanding client seeking a once off extension, including perspective views and models is not outrageous.
But of course if you;re the sort of punter who thinks that all plans are done on the back of an envelope and handed to a builder, this costing will not suit you.


> Architects prices are so low because there is way, way too many of them. The low prices will drive many of them out of business or else abroad - mainly the ones who won't roll with current pricing trends, the really bad ones, and the ones who refuse to adapt to current market reality. Only then will the market stabilise. It is simple economics. Ireland needs to shed lots of architects for the future sustainability of the profession. Hacked clean for better bearing, as Thomas Kinsella said.


This discussion was not prompted by architects prices - a straw man argument on your part.
This is prompted by the fee to planning stage included in another posters query on costs - which I estimated at below cost.

Professions are not like dead pieces of timber to be shaped by some wood butcher to suit his short sighted agenda, but living trees, and if you hack off the roots the tree will die.
Professions are like communities, which without a degree of continuity the necessary knowledge and expertise cannot be passed down to the next generation.
The structural damage being done by thsi crisis will seriously mark the architectural profession in Ireland and indeed all professions related to the building industry.


> But you know what? That's not our problem.


Not yet, but it will be and you know what - you'll probably be one of the loudest complainers when you see what this current crisis will leave of the profession, the dregs who will work for nothing, churning out terrible designs to blight our cities towns and countryside.
Maybe then you'll wish you'd listen to people with foresight instead of looking to the quick buck to be made in the short term.


> The best one that I have heard is the architect who thinks that prices should be artificially bumped up because s/he went to college - "a reward for third-level education".


I stated quite clearly that working for below cost is unsustainable.
Not doing so sets the bottom of the market higher than some would like.
I also commented that people who go to college have expectations of income at a certain level.
Your bland comments suggest you don't know much about this game either, but its fairly simple to explain.
Whilst others are out pursuing their careers from the time they leave school, professionals often spend ten years and more learning.
It is considered reasonable to pay fees at a certain level to remove the financial disadvantage that accrues due to the years in college as well as to reward people for the higher duty of care the take on board.


> So did half the rest of us, boss. What do you want? Government price control?


Another straw man argument - I didn't invoke the government.
You don't post like someone who went to college, certainly not someone who achieved a degree after attending a four year plus professional course, and then several years learning professional practice at reduced rates.
If you were a professional you'd understand these issues, but it seems clear  that you aren't or you'd never advance the arguments you've promoted  here.

You cannot even accurately represent what I posted earlier, which was that fools are rushing to the bottom on fees without any thought for the consequences.
I also posted that below cost selling brings its own rewards and that someone who attained professional competence in the manner described above is simply not going to work for the fee level offered - €500 to design a new house and lodge the planning application - because its not profitable or sustainable to do so.

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

What really seemed to get under your skin in the previous thread was that I reminded you that price is set not just by supply and demand, which is the level your argument settled at, but its also set by the lowest point the seller is able to sell for to cover his costs - that didn't seem to sit too well with you...

You seemed to think that people should bow down to market forces regardless of whether they're covering their costs.
No doubt some architects will - for a while.

Then they'll cop on and pretty soon you'll see architects simply refusing to work for that kind of money.
Don't think the Architectural Technicians will rush to fill that gap - below cost selling is not for them!
No one knows more about running an office profitably than a competent architectural technician.

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

Others posting independently to this thread have already pointed out the pitfalls of paying such poor fees, but you go right ahead and see what kind of service you get.
Let us know how you get on.
And when you want an expert witness to inspect and write a report on what remedial work needs to be done to your property and attend at court relying on his twenty years post graduate experience to help run the case and offer sworn testimony, don't call me, because I more than likely will be too busy doing other things.


> In the meantime, consumers, let's make hay while the sun shines. Don't be put off by people who say to you that it is unfair on poor architects that you have hired a guy at a price that they view as too low. We are not obliged to maintain whatever lifestyles or cost bases they have chosen to have for themselves. These same people wouldn't have thought twice about charging you a high price during the boom, because the market would have allowed them to. Now the market works in our favour. A pendulum swings both ways.


Your comments may be levelled fairly at some - not at me.
I have never charged more than 10% in fees and seldom even achieved that even at the height of the boom.
It seems your argument is so threadbare that you have to resort to exaggeration and unfounded allegations to make your case.


> Consumers now have real power when it comes to retaining professional services of all shapes and sizes. Let's use that power, to demand higher quality, as well as lower prices. Let's see how far that envelope can be pushed. The cheapest guy is not always the most shoddy, and the most expensive guy is not always the best quality.


Consumers have always had the power to beggar a profession, but most people have some sort of moral compass, where they are willing to pay a fair days  pay for a reasonable service.
While I have never advocated charging through the roof, you have repeatedly made the case for below cost fee payments to architects.
If anyone is running an agenda here, it seems to be you, with your market determination of commodity prices being applied to a professional fees.


> The profitability of those professionals is their responsibility, not ours.


If the fees offered are below cost, there is no profitability, no market and therefore no profession.
Despite your trying to cast aspersions on why I give FREE ADVICE here on AAM, I will continue to do so.
I will continue to make the case for paying reasonable fees for competent professional services where appropriate.

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

Your attitude towards the professions seems to be short sighted and if you pursue it you could expose yourself to risk.
I've tried to warn you - and it seems several posters to this thread have understood the warning - so I have done what I can.


ONQ.


----------



## onq (10 Jan 2011)

RIAD_BSC said:


> Does anyone here know roughly how much a sole trading architect might have to pay annually in liability insurance? Or can they purchase insurance by the project?



Recent estimates are circa €2,500 per annum up from €1,200 two years ago for circa €2.6 Million cover any one claim.

Its purchased on the basis of the amount of work certified over the previous year.

AFAIK it cannot be purchased by the project.

ONQ.


----------



## onq (10 Jan 2011)

Staples said:


> Ah come off it. Professionals acting in the interest of potential competition?


No. Professionals acting in the interest of the profession of which they are a part. Its normally written into their code of conduct. If they fail to abide by it and they are the subject of a complaint they may not get to practice the following year.


> The reality is that there is restricted entry to most professional bodies as a means of controlling supply.


No, there isn't. Once you have passed your exams and done your professional practice competently the professional body cannot unreasonably withhold membership.


> Even the leaving cert points system flucutates in response to numbers seeking entry to in any given year. It's not a quality control thing - it's a numbers game.


No again. There are minimum standards set for UCD and other colleges for Architecture. In Bolton Street the points can be lower but there is an aptitude test. I cannot comment on the other professions.

Typically the points are higher for medicine but that reflects the level of study required and the degree of mental acuity is a useful measure.


> I'd agree that a low price isn't everything but it's consideration. The best electrician I ever used was also the cheapest while some of the young turks who characterised the Celtic years charged high and were bad to the point of being dangerous.


 Can't argue with that.


> On the other hand, the best solicitor I know is almost one of the most expensive but he's not the best BECAUSE he's expensive.



Correct again. He's expensive because he's the best. 

ONQ.


----------



## onq (10 Jan 2011)

RIAD_BSC said:


> (snip)
> My beef is that some architects and other professionals complain that the market rate is unfair, and encourage consumers on AAM and elsewhere to pay above this. That is bad advice, and also biased advice. The market rate has nothing to do with unfairness.


You're confusing two entirely different things.
Did you not read MF1's simple and elegant explanation of the lowest set price?
You're only talking about a market rate if the rate is above this.
Below this lowest limit its called below cost selling.

What's the difference?
The difference is that with a low market rate people stay in business - just.
With below cost selling - sooner or later - people are driven out of business.
That's the difference.


> (snip)
> That's like complaining the weather is unfair. It is pointless. It just is the way it is. Nobody has a right to stay in business.


Another straw man argument.
No one said anything about "the right to stay in business" - this is a figment of your imagination.
I made the point that an architect cannot stay in business if people cannot offer a sustainable level of fees.
That's axiomatic and applies to every profession and every business - you have to make enough today to stay in business tomorrow.

But so long as we're talking about rights...
Nobody has a right to expect others to subsidise their new build by working for below cost fees.

And your comment about cashflow...
Cashflow allows you to pay bills, but if people are paying you less than it costs you to do the work, you'll soon be out of business.

ONQ.


----------



## RIAD_BSC (11 Jan 2011)

ONQ, in a declining market such as this one, it isn't the professionals who set the prices, it is the consumers. You don't seem to get that point. Below-cost selling, or the point at which an architect can make a profit, is not the issue. The issue is what consumers are willing to pay, which may or may not meet the prices you want to charge. You said this past year has been a "disaster" for you. Perhaps it is because you charge so much. I do not mean that in an insulting or provocative way, but it is rather an honest commercial observation.

As for the myriad other supposed rebuttals you made to my arguments, I won't address them individually. We are fundamentally too far apart to find common ground. Your arguments are too emotional for me to address. There is no point in boring everybody else on AAM with this, and we'll only end up breaching the forum rules.

As an aside, and considering your interest in promoting your profession, do you mind if I ask whether or not you are RIAI registered? The person listed on the website you often promote here as being the principal of your practice does not appear on the RIAI's online register of people who are allowed call themselves architects. I'm not saying that you are not registered, there may well be a simple explanation that you can share with us, but I think it is relevant to your postings here on AAM as to whether or not you actually are an architect.......


----------



## onq (12 Jan 2011)

_"As for the myriad other supposed rebuttals you made to my arguments, I  won't address them individually. We are fundamentally too far apart to  find common ground. Your arguments are too emotional for me to address. There is no point in boring everybody else on AAM with this, and we'll only end up breaching the forum rules."
_ 
[Translation: I cannot support my position]

No surprises there.

RE your pet subject, below cost selling, I have found out it sometimes goes under another name - predatory pricing.
I understand its illegal in the EU - you might want to bear that in mind before promoting it.

The market price is being set by draughtsmen doing nixers on the dole.
As I said before, you get what you pay for.

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

RE whether or not I am an architect; -

My registration is a matter between me and the RIAI.
My qualification as an architect from Bolton St. is a matter of record
My submission to the JOC on the Environment, occurred on May 18th 2010.

These matters have been discussed here, on boards.ie and on Archiseek previously.
My competence is partly shown by my circa 2,300 posts on all matters in relation to buildings on AAM 

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

RE whether my fees are too high - some may think so, yet few walk away without paying me and my practice enjoys repeat clients and referrals.
RE this being a factor in last years disaster - no, it was the result of five major jobs stopping because of the recession -  my fee levels didn't come into it.

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

Finally, I do not promote my website or practice per se - I promote architecture and building competently, professionally and compliantly.
The AAM Forum Rules allow me include my website URL in my signature file along with a disclaimer in certain posts.
My posts to this thread do not qualify, which is why the link is not included in them.

FWIW

ONQ.


----------



## RIAD_BSC (12 Jan 2011)

ONQ, I have clearly offended you, and that was not my intention. I thought we were having a debate here about architects' fees. This is not supposed to be an _ad hominem_ discussion. You have your point of view, I have mine. But I must be allowed defend myself and to rebut your points in the strongest possible terms.

1 - Below cost selling of certain products is indeed illegal, while with other products it isn't illegal at all. There is no all-encompassing EU-wide ban on the below cost selling of everything. Below cost selling of a service such as architecture is not illegal in the slightest in Ireland. You should get your facts right on that one. You're effectively saying that every business that makes a loss is breaking the law, which is nonsense.

2 - But what is definitely illegal is to call oneself an architect when you are not RIAI registered. Your degree or experience, ONQ, does not entitle you to style yourself as an architect to the public (just as a law degree doesn't entitle someone to call themselves a solicitor or barrister). You are not RIAI registered, as we both well know, so you are not an architect, regardless of your competencies. And the matter of your registration (considering the fact that you openly describe yourself as an architect in your AAM profile) is not just "between you and the RIAI". That is why the RIAI register is public.

"Section 18(1) of the Building Control Act 2007 makes it an offence to use the title “architect”, either alone or in combination with any words or letters, or name, title or description implying that a person is so registered. If found guilty of this offence a person shall be liable, in summary conviction to a fine not exceeding €5000 or imprisonment for a term not exceeding 12 months or both."


You offer what I am sure is competent advice to AAM posters, but you tell them not to hire cheaper "unqualified people" who are not architects, and then you (within the AAM rules) stick your company's URL at the bottom. I think this could be misleading people into thinking you are an architect. I think this sort of thing should be highlighted, and I make no apologies for it whatsoever. I honestly don't know anything about the debate you are referring to on Archiseek or any submissions to the JOC. Honestly, I don't. The less said about Boards.ie the better, don't you agree?

I think that it is highly ironic and hypocritical, given your previous excoriation of AAM posters for hiring building professionals other than architects to design buildings, that you are not even an architect yourself, ONQ.

I think this debate has run its course, and is no longer of benefit to anyone on AAM beyond the two of us. Feel free to pick it up on PM if you would rather.

To the mods, thank you for your patience. I have tried scrupulously to keep this within AAM posting rules.


----------



## onq (12 Jan 2011)

You haven't offended me, RIAD_BSC.

Admittedly, you have; -

- raised straw man arguments, 
- made several ad hominem attacks and 
- failed to answer never mind rebut many of the points I have raised against your position in my previous posts.

Now, instead of dealing with the issues I raised in the last post you again chose to ignore them.
Its hard to be offended by a guy who keeps running away from the issues raised.
Or by one who fails to see that an economy survives by give and take.

As regards my right to "call" myself an architect, you'll find I don't do that on my website.
I seldom even refer to my qualification unless I'm pushed into it.
"Planning and Design Consultant" is how I style my practice.

As a result, you'll find few references to me as an architect online and I'm not trading as one until this matter is resolved.
This takes the ground from under you when you accuse me, unfairly and without foundation, of being a hypocrite.

I'll excuse your behaviour for the moment because I value free speech.
I'll also excuse you because of the confusion surrounding the use of the Title Architect at the moment.

In Ireland I could legally call myself an architect from 27th June 1990  until 1st May 2008 because my qualification was prescribed in the  Architect's Directive.
Since then I am precluded from calling myself an architect here because the Building Control Act 2007 [BAC2007] fails to recognise my qualification.

The Architect's Directive DIR 85/384/EEC and the Mutual Recognition of Professional Qualifications Directive DIR 2005/36/EC confirm my right to use the title architect throughout in the first instance, the EEC and in the latter the enlarged EU.

DIR 85/384/EEC was transposed into Irish law by S.I. 15 of 1989
DIR 2005/36/EC was transposed into Irish law by S.I. 139 of 2008

Both Directives pre-date the BCA 2007,  but the RIAI who lobbied for and  whose members benefited from that Act  together with the government of  the day who brought it into law failed  to recognise this, creating  anomalies in the legislation.

The relevant sections of Directive DIR 2005/36/EC state as follows:

========================================
_
Section 8

Architect_ _

Article 46_ _

Training of architects_ _

1. Training as an architect shall comprise a total of at least four  years of full-time study or six years of study, at least three years of  which on a full-time basis, at a university or comparable teaching  institution. The training must lead to successful completion of a  university-level examination._ _

That training, which must be of university level, and of which  architecture is the principal component, must maintain a balance between  theoretical and practical aspects of architectural training and  guarantee the acquisition of the following knowledge and skills:_ _

(a) ability to create architectural designs that satisfy both aesthetic and technical requirements;_ _
(b) adequate knowledge of the history and theories of architecture and the related arts, technologies and human sciences;
(c) knowledge of the fine arts as an influence on the quality of architectural design;
(d) adequate knowledge of urban design, planning and the skills involved in the planning process;
(e) understanding of the relationship between people and buildings, and  between buildings and their environment, and of the need to relate  buildings and the spaces between them to human needs and scale;
(f) understanding of the profession of architecture and the role of the  architect in society, in particular in preparing briefs that take  account of social factors;
(g) understanding of the methods of investigation and preparation of the brief for a design project;
(h) understanding of the structural design, constructional and engineering problems associated with building design;
(i) adequate knowledge of physical problems and technologies and of the  function of buildings so as to provide them with internal conditions of  comfort and protection against the climate;
(j) the necessary design skills to meet building users' requirements  within the constraints imposed by cost factors and building regulations;
(k) adequate knowledge of the industries, organisations, regulations and  procedures involved in translating design concepts into buildings and  integrating plans into overall planning.

2. The knowledge and skills listed in paragraph 1 may be amended in  accordance with the procedure referred to in Article 58(2) with a view  to adapting them to scientific and technical progress. Such updates must  not entail, for any Member State, any amendment of existing legislative  principles relating to the structure of professions as regards training  and the conditions of access by natural persons._ 

========================================

_Article 49

Acquired rights specific to architects_ _

1. Each Member State shall accept evidence of formal qualifications as  an architect listed in Annex VI, point 6, awarded by the other Member  States, and attesting a course of training which began no later than the  reference academic year referred to in that Annex, even if they do not  satisfy the minimum requirements laid down in Article 46, and shall, for  the purposes of access to and pursuit of the professional activities of  an architect, give such evidence the same effect on its territory as  evidence of formal qualifications as an architect which it itself  issues._ _

Under these circumstances, certificates issued by the competent  authorities of the Federal Republic of Germany attesting that evidence  of formal qualifications issued on or after 8 May 1945 by the competent  authorities of the German Democratic Republic is equivalent to such  evidence listed in that Annex, shall be recognised._ _

2. Without prejudice to paragraph 1, every Member State shall recognise  the following evidence of formal qualifications and shall, for the  purposes of access to and pursuit of the professional activities of an  architect performed, give them the same effect on its territory as  evidence of formal qualifications which it itself issues: certificates  issued to nationals of Member States by the Member States which have  enacted rules governing the access to and pursuit of the activities of  an architect as of the following dates:_ _

(a) 1 January 1995 for Austria, Finland and Sweden;_ _
(b) 1 May 2004 for the Czech Republic, Estonia, Cyprus, Latvia, Lithuania, Hungary, Malta, Poland, Slovenia and Slovakia;
(c) 5 August 1987 for the other Member States.

The certificates referred to in paragraph 1 shall certify that the  holder was authorised, no later than the respective date, to use the  professional title of architect, and that he has been effectively  engaged, in the context of those rules, in the activities in question  for at least three consecutive years during the five years preceding the  award of the certificate._ 

========================================

_V. 7. ARCHITECT

5.7.1. Evidence of formal qualifications of architects recognised pursuant to Article 46_ 
------------------

_Country

Ireland_ 


_Evidence of formal qualifications

1. Degree of Bachelor of Architecture (B.Arch. NUI)_ _
2. Degree of Bachelor of Architecture (B.Arch.)_ _(Previously, until 2002 - Degree standard diploma in architecture (Dip. Arch)
3. Certificate of associateship (ARIAI)_ _
4. Certificate of membership (MRIAI)_ 


_Body awarding the evidence of qualifications

1. National University of Ireland to architecture graduates of University College Dublin_ _
2. Dublin Institute of Technology, Bolton Street, Dublin _ _(College of Technology, Bolton Street, Dublin)
3. Royal Institute of Architects of Ireland_ _
4. Royal Institute of Architects of Ireland_ 


_Reference academic year

1988/1989_ 

========================================

As I started my course before 1988 I also have acquired rights entitling   me to use the Title Architect, but these also have been disregarded.
The Bolton Street and UCD Courses both exceed the minimum requirements being five year, not four year, full time courses.
There has been a suggestion for two years that the Dip.Arch.DIT Fetac Level 8 is to be re-graded to Level 9.
This would mean the qualification will be upgraded from a Bachelor to a Masters degree equivalent.

In spring 2010 I started to consider how best to redress the balance for architects who were not registered with the RIAI.
I considered suing the government and the RIAI in the High Court and one person I know may be preparing to do this.
I decided that something accomplished by a judicial and legislative _fiat_ could best be fought on its own terms.
Accordingly herewith the [broken link removed] soon to be reviewed by the Cabinet.

It may be law within two months or it may not - we'll see.
But then I'll hope to be finished the first year of my MBA.
I may also be registered as an Architect by that time.

In the meantime, I respectfully suggest that you should be wary of resting on the evidence of the Register.
The Registrar is on record as stating that the Register is incomplete and is still being compiled.

Persons who have applied to become registered are allowed by the  Register to use the Title Architect unless a decision is made against  them.
Some applications will be coming before the Admissions Board via one of  the routes prescribed for those with prescribed qualifications.
Some applications will be coming before the ARAE process and thereby to the Board.

The damage done by the BCA 2007 to the professional standing of  non-MRIAI Architects which they have built up over the years has been  incalculable.
I think it could be unwise for someone to allege that persons who  have provided services commensurate with those of an architect for 10  years prior to May 1st 2008 are behaving hypocritically if they refer to  themselves as an Architect.
For the record, I have provided services commensurate with those of an  architect for twenty years, not ten, in addition to my holding a  prescribed qualification and also having the benefit of acquired rights  under Article 49 of DIR 2005/36/EC.

Before you accuse anyone else of using the Title Architect illegally or of being a hypocrite, you should at least check four things; -

1. Do they hold a prescribed qualification entitling them to use the Title throughout Europe.
2. Have they legally practised as a qualified architect for ten years or more prior to the BCA 2007.
3. Have they refrained from trading as an architect or using the title in the course of their business since May 2008.
4. Have they applied for Registration via one of the several prescribed routes or commenced the ARAE assessment process.

If the answer to any of those questions is "Yes" then I'd be very careful what you decide to allege about them on a public forum in future.


ONQ.


----------



## RIAD_BSC (13 Jan 2011)

ONQ, enough of the voluminous drivel. You got banned from Boards.ie for exactly this type of thing.

The upshot of it all is that you are not a registered architect, as you confirmed yourself in your last posting (..... "in two months... I may be a registered architect by that time"). If you were entitled to use the term, you would use it. I don't need to worry about alleging anything. You can huff and puff and obfuscate all you like, but that's the bottom line. 

I think, however, you should consider removing the term architect from your AAM profile in case someone reports you to the RIAI.

I'm not engaging in this rubbish with you any more, and I won't be posting on this thread again. I have too much work to do. You, clearly, must have none.


----------



## mf1 (13 Jan 2011)

Just on a point of order, lads, before you both explode in a fizz bomb of self-righteous indignation and frankly, on occasion,  downright childish rudeness , onq is actually right and RIAD BSC is actually wrong on the "architect" thing. 

mf


----------



## onq (13 Jan 2011)

RIAD_BSC

John Graby, Registrar, already knows that I claim the right to use the Title.
I refrain from widespread use in order not to flaunt the law.
Please raise any concerns with the Registrar directly.

I'm sure he'll be particularly appreciative of your comments about architects spanning three threads on askaboutmoney.com

You can reach him at; -

John Graby, Director,
RIAI, 8 Merrion Square,
Dublin 2, Ireland.

Tel: +353 (0)1 676 1703
Fax: +353 (0)1 662 8593
email: info@ riai.ie

If you like, you can say I was asking for him and I hope to be be contacting him again before the summer.


ONQ.

=============================================

Joint Oireachtas Committe on the Environment, Meeting Room Three, 
Government Buildings, Kildare Street,  Dublin 2.  - 18th May 2010.

http://debates.oireachtas.ie/ENJ/2010/05/18/00005.asp
_
Vice Chairman:

I ask Mr. O’Neill to be brief as the RIAI must make its presentation.


Mr. Michael O’Neill:

My name is Michael O’Neill and I am a qualified architect of 20 years’ standing having qualified from Bolton Street DIT in 1990. I appear before the committee to address the rights of graduate architects which have not been supported by the Building Control Act 2007.

I understand the registrar’s position is that one standard should be applied and that it should be MRIAI. To apply this standard universally will be divisive, retrograde and undermine existing established and statutory rights. It fails to support adequately the right to earn a living to which postgraduate and self-taught architects are entitled under Irish law.

The basic standard that entitles Irish persons to call themselves “architect” under EU Law is well known to the RIAI and is not that of MRIAI. Four kinds of persons were specifically referred to in the architects directive DIR 85/384/EEC, two persons with qualifications and two persons affiliated to the RIAI, Dipl. Arch. DIT, B. Arch. NUI, ARIAI and MRIAI. This was written into the architects directive DIR 85/384/EEC and the mutual recognition of qualifications directive DIR 2005/36/EC. Irish Statute SI 15 of 1989 transposed the architects directive into Irish law.

The first two persons named, the holders of Dipl. Arch. DIT and B. Arch. NUI, set the bar at the level of graduate. These are people who have passed a full-time five year course.

Allow me to spell this out — graduates are entitled to call themselves “architect”. The Building Control Act 2007 fails to acknowledge this. It adopts instead the standard of a private organisation. The Building Control Act 2007, and by implication the registrar, is not working to the standards agreed with the EU. Who benefits from this?

ARIAI is the associate affix and this can include some non-qualified persons. MRIAI outranks ARIAI in the Royal Institute of Architects of Ireland and the member affix also includes some non-qualified persons. Not only is the MRIAI standard not the right standard, its ranks are known to include non-qualified persons as well. Despite this, the RIAI registrar and the Building Control Act 2007 fail to recognise adequately the rights of self-taught architects. Who benefits from this?

DIR 2005/36/EC does not allow the raising of the bar. It consolidates directives on the mutual recognition of qualifications. Within its well-worded provisions is a means of updating the core skills to cater for scientific and technical progress. This does not allow the registrar to prevent natural persons with the required qualifications from accessing the profession. This process of raising the bar above the requirement of the EU directive is known as gold plating and I have written to the EU about it. Who benefits from this?

Are there questions to answer at Government level? Yes.

How was the Government persuaded to ignore the rights of graduates to use the title and so fail to allow them to be automatically registered?

How was the Government persuaded to ignore the rights of established, self-taught architects to use the title and so place their livelihoods and families’ well-being at risk? 

A simple transposition of the persons named in the EU directive into the Act would have addressed the former and the insertion of a grandfather clause would have dealt with the latter issue. 

Who benefits from the fact that this was not done?

These are the questions that must be answered. Failing to answer them and provide the necessary remedies will leave many competent professionals disenfranchised._


----------



## onq (13 Jan 2011)

mf1 said:


> Just on a point of order, lads, before you both explode in a fizz bomb of self-righteous indignation and frankly, on occasion,  downright childish rudeness , onq is actually right and RIAD BSC is actually wrong on the "architect" thing.
> 
> mf



Appreciate the comment.

Thanks. 

ONQ.


----------



## onq (16 Jan 2011)

censuspro said:


> John Ruskin addressed situations like these when he said:
> 
> _"The common law of business balance prohibits paying a little and getting a lot -- it can't be done. If you deal with the lowest bidder, it is well to add something for the risk you run, and if you do that you will have enough to pay for something better."_
> 
> ...



There is no doubt but that Ruskin knew what he was talking about.
Equally, you have raised a point that is essential to bear in mind when reviewing proposed fee agreements.
An unscrupulous vendor may charge the earth while offering a shoddy service.
Therefore a high price is not necessarily an indicator of quality.

Equally, a low fee tender does not indicate good quality of work.

People who are making a lot of money on relatively small work may be overcharging for bottom of the range work.
Alternatively they may be using their legitimate business to launder cash from illicit enterprises or they may be subsidising their business from other, legitimate sources.
Either way when you see a suspiciously low tender, assume there is something amiss.

There is also a rising concern among insurance companies that people charging below cost cannot adequately be covering all the bases design wise.
It is foreseeable that such persons cannot be employing adequately paid people to do the work and so actionable errors or faulty work may occur.

Sooner or later all this mess we're in will settle down, the smoke will clear and we'll be able to judge for ourselves what's what.

My experience with "Big 4" type firms in any profession is that they fulfil a niche market requirement.
I you need their service, you should be willing to pay for it.

But there is a world of a difference between someone looking for a 400% premium on standard work and someone undercutting a reasonable fee by 400%.

Apples and oranges.

ONQ.


----------

