Hi all,
I'm looking for a little guidance here. We're looking at extending our existing 1950s semi-D in suburban Dublin. We got an architect in, went through our requirements, gave him our brief, our budget, etc . . . We went through a number of rounds of drawings, revisions, etc . . . and of course added in a few bits over time.
Then he came back to us with indicative prices (about 3 months into the process) and according to his estimates the cost would be over twice the budget we gave him originally. I'm a little dumbfounded to say the least.
I *know* that part of the process involves adding bits, taking out bits, etc . . . and we can't go for the gold plated toilet if we want a window in our living room. But, is twice the budget a reasonable place to start ? This basically means that the plans he has provided will need to be cut to shreds to fit into our budget.
What with the current economic blahdy blah I think our chances of getting twice the expected money out of the bank/nowhere just isn't an option. So, we have to get it back down to budget somehow. Probably by cutting out all the fancy schmancy stuff he added in and coming back to . . . our original plans.
I'm thinking that if I said I wanted a big slide down the front of the house he would be quick enough to say "you can't have that, it's against planning regulations", or I wanted to build a 15 metre high wall between me and the neighbours he would say "you can't have that either", so, *if* we added too much extra space during discussions, would it not be reasonable to expect the architect to at least flag up that "this will likely push you above budget, so you might want to consider a smaller space" ?
z
I'm looking for a little guidance here. We're looking at extending our existing 1950s semi-D in suburban Dublin. We got an architect in, went through our requirements, gave him our brief, our budget, etc . . . We went through a number of rounds of drawings, revisions, etc . . . and of course added in a few bits over time.
Then he came back to us with indicative prices (about 3 months into the process) and according to his estimates the cost would be over twice the budget we gave him originally. I'm a little dumbfounded to say the least.
I *know* that part of the process involves adding bits, taking out bits, etc . . . and we can't go for the gold plated toilet if we want a window in our living room. But, is twice the budget a reasonable place to start ? This basically means that the plans he has provided will need to be cut to shreds to fit into our budget.
What with the current economic blahdy blah I think our chances of getting twice the expected money out of the bank/nowhere just isn't an option. So, we have to get it back down to budget somehow. Probably by cutting out all the fancy schmancy stuff he added in and coming back to . . . our original plans.
I'm thinking that if I said I wanted a big slide down the front of the house he would be quick enough to say "you can't have that, it's against planning regulations", or I wanted to build a 15 metre high wall between me and the neighbours he would say "you can't have that either", so, *if* we added too much extra space during discussions, would it not be reasonable to expect the architect to at least flag up that "this will likely push you above budget, so you might want to consider a smaller space" ?
z