I
InSearchOf
Guest
If you've recently used an architect and paid a % what % did you pay? Talking about a full refurb plus extension so significant money.
Thanks.
Thanks.
Fees can be viewed in terms of percentage or fixed fee amount.
Fees are the architect is taking a view re
Sometimes this is because of their personality, but a demanding client can be merely a goad to achieveing a great building.
More often than not it is because of their inexperience at reading drawings, thinking in 3D and general visualization - the archtiect can assist with all of this.
If you have done a lot of ground work, or paradoxically if you have done NONE and will let the architect work away with a basic brief - things can work out very efficiently.
Half-knowing what you want OTOH and at the same time being relucant to allow your architect to do what he's trained to do and design your new house - that's the worst of all worlds.
BTW that's not a typo - I really meant: "your new house".
Because if the design works out well, the existing house will be transformed.
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.
Fees are the architect is taking a view re
- risk
- time
- client
- profit
Sometimes this is because of their personality, but a demanding client can be merely a goad to achieveing a great building.
More often than not it is because of their inexperience at reading drawings, thinking in 3D and general visualization - the archtiect can assist with all of this.
If you have done a lot of ground work, or paradoxically if you have done NONE and will let the architect work away with a basic brief - things can work out very efficiently.
Half-knowing what you want OTOH and at the same time being relucant to allow your architect to do what he's trained to do and design your new house - that's the worst of all worlds.
BTW that's not a typo - I really meant: "your new house".
Because if the design works out well, the existing house will be transformed.
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.
Just ensure s/he is a properly qualified architect.
You can check it out on the RIAI website.
My work colleague thought hers was and discovered otherwise and my neighbour the same.
It is now illegal to call yourself an architect, unless you are actually state registered. But plenty still doing it.
You can check it out on the RIAI website.
My work colleague thought hers was and discovered otherwise and my neighbour the same.
It is now illegal to call yourself an architect, unless you are actually state registered. But plenty still doing it.
Mommah,
Were your work colleague and neighbour unhappy with the work done?
Or was their concern centred on what they understood to be the improper use of the title?
For the record the Register on the RIAI website -
- gives no information on the qualification of the persons named thereon.
- is not a complete record of those persons eligible to be registered.
- does not record all those who have applied to be registered.
- does not record those who fail to pay the registration fee.
The Register is the first fruit of the RIAI franchising of the profession.
As such it behoves us to ensure they do not abuse their dominant position in the market.
Which is why the Buildin Control (Amendment) Bill 2010 was proposed on the 8th July 2010 to help redress matters.
Let me put it another way - Ruairí Quinn, who I like personally but who has not practised for over 20 years - is one of those on the Register.
Does that give you a warm and fuzzy feeling of assurance about the Register, its framer and their intent?
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.
Were your work colleague and neighbour unhappy with the work done?
Or was their concern centred on what they understood to be the improper use of the title?
For the record the Register on the RIAI website -
- gives no information on the qualification of the persons named thereon.
- is not a complete record of those persons eligible to be registered.
- does not record all those who have applied to be registered.
- does not record those who fail to pay the registration fee.
The Register is the first fruit of the RIAI franchising of the profession.
As such it behoves us to ensure they do not abuse their dominant position in the market.
Which is why the Buildin Control (Amendment) Bill 2010 was proposed on the 8th July 2010 to help redress matters.
Let me put it another way - Ruairí Quinn, who I like personally but who has not practised for over 20 years - is one of those on the Register.
Does that give you a warm and fuzzy feeling of assurance about the Register, its framer and their intent?
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.
So what's stopping you working out what 9.5% is and cap it at that?
For small work 11% can be a more normal fee, so IMO you're well on course.
He gets his pecentage [which is really only a means to an end] and you get your fixed fee.
Unless you're looking to reduce this amount considerably you should both end up on the same hymn sheet.
Contrary to popular opinion, percentages are not plucked out of thin air and in other European countries guidelines may be given.
Remember his fee covers a particular service and that his fees are not structured to allow for endless variations, revisions to finished drawings, extended disputes on site, etc.
Either be prepared to sign off on the work and stick to it, or else agree an hourly rate for additional work or time spent on negotiations over and above the normal tender process.
Finally agree your staged fee payments.
- The bulk of the drawing and detailing work is done by Tender Stage, so expect a bill then.
- After that there is at least one interim stage to be billed during site inspections.
- Finally there is the last stage payment, around the time he issues the Penultimate Certificate in favour of the builder and his own Opinions.
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.
Thing is as a consumer and not an expert in the area, I want to be assured that the person I employ is what they say on the tin.
There are many many many individuals who promote themselves as various professions without a shred of training, quality assurance or accountability.
So if I was looking for an architect ONE of the parameters I would seek is the fact that they had in fact been trained as an architect...not an engineer, not a technician, not a woodwork teacher.
The second parameter would be customer references.
I agree with both your comments Mommah in principle
Yet matters are not as clear cut as the RIAI like to make out re the qualification.
I for example have twenty years post graduate practice as an architect and have been named as such in court cases giving evidence as well as certifying monies.
Yet I cannot legally sign certs as an architect because the Building Control Act 2007 [BCA 2007] favours RIAI Members.
This act fails to recognise my qualification which was prescribed in;
- DIR 85/384/EEC - "The Architects Directive"
Both of these documents confer an entitlement on holders of prescribed qualifications to use the Title Architect.
BCA 2007 fails to recognise the incorporation into Irish law of both these Directives by statutory instruments.
BCA 2007 fails to automatically recognise my inalienable right to use the Title throughout the EU.
But I comply with the law and for the past while I have called myself a "Planning and Design Consultant".
Still, it rankles, and the issue is not settled yet.
Its hard to accept a gang of glad-handers passing legislation telling you you're no longer something you've been for twenty years - even though your own design work has never been the subject of enforecement action - when their own incompetence has landed the country in the mess its in.
As regards use of the title and the principle of exclusion adopted by this disastrous government and its former perfidious green minister, they have totally misunderstood the nature of the profession liability and accountability.
The only way to call a person to account is to allow him or her to use the title architect, then regulate him or her as an architect.
Preventing him from acting as an architect allows him to scuttle away from responsibility he might already have been paid for.
In real terms this could mean a lighter fine or censure from a judge to the detriment of the public good.
But that's fine by the RIAI, who still claim their intention is to protect and inform the public.
As I say, there are a few sides to this story and its not over yet.
Apologies for going on a bit about this.
Its a matter that affects me.
Its the simple truth.
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.
Yet matters are not as clear cut as the RIAI like to make out re the qualification.
I for example have twenty years post graduate practice as an architect and have been named as such in court cases giving evidence as well as certifying monies.
Yet I cannot legally sign certs as an architect because the Building Control Act 2007 [BCA 2007] favours RIAI Members.
This act fails to recognise my qualification which was prescribed in;
- DIR 85/384/EEC - "The Architects Directive"
and the consolidation of this within
- DIR 2005/36/EC - "The Mutual Recognition of Qualifications Directive".
Both of these documents confer an entitlement on holders of prescribed qualifications to use the Title Architect.
BCA 2007 fails to recognise the incorporation into Irish law of both these Directives by statutory instruments.
BCA 2007 fails to automatically recognise my inalienable right to use the Title throughout the EU.
But I comply with the law and for the past while I have called myself a "Planning and Design Consultant".
Still, it rankles, and the issue is not settled yet.
Its hard to accept a gang of glad-handers passing legislation telling you you're no longer something you've been for twenty years - even though your own design work has never been the subject of enforecement action - when their own incompetence has landed the country in the mess its in.
As regards use of the title and the principle of exclusion adopted by this disastrous government and its former perfidious green minister, they have totally misunderstood the nature of the profession liability and accountability.
The only way to call a person to account is to allow him or her to use the title architect, then regulate him or her as an architect.
Preventing him from acting as an architect allows him to scuttle away from responsibility he might already have been paid for.
In real terms this could mean a lighter fine or censure from a judge to the detriment of the public good.
But that's fine by the RIAI, who still claim their intention is to protect and inform the public.
As I say, there are a few sides to this story and its not over yet.
Apologies for going on a bit about this.
Its a matter that affects me.
Its the simple truth.
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.
R
RIAD_BSC
Guest
If you were looking for a doctor, you wouldn't trust one who wasn't registered with the Medical Council, no matter how many medical degrees he says he has. Similarly, I wouldn't hire someone who claimed to be a solicitor if they weren't registered with the Law Society, no matter where they said they studied law and how knowledgeable they claimed to be about legislation.
To the OP - truth is, there is absolutely zero reason to hire someone who is not RIAI registered. Why take the risk when there are heaps of registered architects out there looking for projects to work on? Hire a registered architect. At least if something goes wrong, you can complain to the registering authority. If you hire an "architect" who is unregistered, you have less protection.
When people, on AAM and elsewhere, tell you not to worry about whether or not your architect is registered, you should ask yourself what that person's motives are; what is their angle? Are they not registered themselvces?
The world is full of vested interests, InSearchof. AAM is too.
To the OP - truth is, there is absolutely zero reason to hire someone who is not RIAI registered. Why take the risk when there are heaps of registered architects out there looking for projects to work on? Hire a registered architect. At least if something goes wrong, you can complain to the registering authority. If you hire an "architect" who is unregistered, you have less protection.
When people, on AAM and elsewhere, tell you not to worry about whether or not your architect is registered, you should ask yourself what that person's motives are; what is their angle? Are they not registered themselvces?
The world is full of vested interests, InSearchof. AAM is too.
I would expect a doctor and (to a lesser degree) a solicitor to provide the same advice to me based on the information in front of them. Reagarding architects, yes they should be fully qualified in all the physical aspects of the build (will it stand up) and also in the planning process. But this can probably be done by an engineer. However, the very reason I would go to a number of architects, who have been either recommended or won awards etc is to get diverse design ideas. So for me, work already done and my "gut" feel would win out. I would rather have someone who has deisgned 30 buildings over 15 years and not an "architect" than an "architect" without much (or poor) work done
Firefly,
Thanks for your comments.
RIAD_BSC,
I laid my cards on the table above and on another thread.
You suggest that the restriction of the use of the title benefits the public - not so.
There is nothing stopping anybody - me, or even you - from providing architectural services.
I can practice as a "Planning and Design Consultant" freely.
The BCA 2007 only restricts use of the title.
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.
Thanks for your comments.
RIAD_BSC,
I laid my cards on the table above and on another thread.
You suggest that the restriction of the use of the title benefits the public - not so.
There is nothing stopping anybody - me, or even you - from providing architectural services.
I can practice as a "Planning and Design Consultant" freely.
The BCA 2007 only restricts use of the title.
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.
The main reason one would hire an architect over an engineer for one's build is their design training and skill.
It seems an intangible skill to the layperson, but believe me it is very potent.
Go to any engineer's house and compare to an architect's and you will see what I mean.
I hope none of my many engineer friends are reading this.....
I have been in lots of architects houses and wood work teachers and builders (usually the worst!)
It seems an intangible skill to the layperson, but believe me it is very potent.
Go to any engineer's house and compare to an architect's and you will see what I mean.
I hope none of my many engineer friends are reading this.....
I have been in lots of architects houses and wood work teachers and builders (usually the worst!)
(chuckle)
Mommah,
If only more people thought like you!
I and a few colleagues were talking to a business development consultant today.
He was telling us how people sell and was using "selling the car" as worked example.
He mentioned models to us then in an architectural context and I had a sort of epiphany.
It became clear to me that it was easier for people to see the benefits in real things - "tangible" things than in intangible things like skillsets.
With a car the client had a tangible thing that had a price.
But when the client retained an architect or indeed any designer, they were embarking on a journey of discovery that was actually led by them, as opposed to buying something that had already been defined into a solid form by the designer.
With the final cost being determined by the time the journey took, most architects are taking a risk negotiating fees based on a percentage basis.
===================
Thinking back on it now, this is a major difference between industrial designers and architects - industrial designers seldom deal with the public directly or haggle over the price, whereas architects nearly always do.
===================
Mommah, the people you list above as offering less than the best in terms of design are mainly those not very experienced in leading people on a design journey, partly because they are not themselves trained to undertake free-form design.
Engineers think mainly of structure, as opposed to form.
Builders think in terms of worked details.
The ability to design - and to detail, to make the design a reality - is what the architect brings to the table.
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.
Mommah,
If only more people thought like you!
I and a few colleagues were talking to a business development consultant today.
He was telling us how people sell and was using "selling the car" as worked example.
He mentioned models to us then in an architectural context and I had a sort of epiphany.
It became clear to me that it was easier for people to see the benefits in real things - "tangible" things than in intangible things like skillsets.
With a car the client had a tangible thing that had a price.
But when the client retained an architect or indeed any designer, they were embarking on a journey of discovery that was actually led by them, as opposed to buying something that had already been defined into a solid form by the designer.
With the final cost being determined by the time the journey took, most architects are taking a risk negotiating fees based on a percentage basis.
===================
Thinking back on it now, this is a major difference between industrial designers and architects - industrial designers seldom deal with the public directly or haggle over the price, whereas architects nearly always do.
===================
Mommah, the people you list above as offering less than the best in terms of design are mainly those not very experienced in leading people on a design journey, partly because they are not themselves trained to undertake free-form design.
Engineers think mainly of structure, as opposed to form.
Builders think in terms of worked details.
The ability to design - and to detail, to make the design a reality - is what the architect brings to the table.
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.
I agree 100% with everything you said in your last post.
I am not an architect...but have MUCH exposure to them over the last 20 years.
They are an interesting bunch with a lot to offer consumers...but struggle with making what they have to offer tangible.
Once the job is done and paid for...the advantages are very clear.
Particularly when you compare to the "architects" job.
I have one friend...whose "architect" failed to allow enough room in her sitting room for a 3 piece suite. The house is massive, particularly the hallways...heyho yoose gets what yoose pays for.
I am not an architect...but have MUCH exposure to them over the last 20 years.
They are an interesting bunch with a lot to offer consumers...but struggle with making what they have to offer tangible.
Once the job is done and paid for...the advantages are very clear.
Particularly when you compare to the "architects" job.
I have one friend...whose "architect" failed to allow enough room in her sitting room for a 3 piece suite. The house is massive, particularly the hallways...heyho yoose gets what yoose pays for.
Its unusual to meet someone so well-experienced as you, Mommah.
As for your friend, there is no excuse for her suffering that kind of nonsense.
That was sheer incompetence, but unfortunately you don't get what you pay for.
I took over a house from another fool whose design left a 3.1M wide living room.
That was that width for a 1995 apartment - my normal absolute minimum for a small house would be 3.3-3.6M.
The previous incumbent had been paid quite a lot of money by the client, and still hadn't given a competent service, and to add insult to injury, there was a side passage circa 2.4M left over - h could have offered a 4.1M living room with room to spare!
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.