# Forum Home Renovation Structural Renovation  Architect Question

## frog_hopper

Hi Guys, 
We are getting some modest extensions done to the front of our double story brick veneer 70s house. 
This will primarily consist of:
* Remodelling kitchen
* Reclaiming balcony area (currently concrete suspended slab)
* Deck at front
* Remodelling front entrance 
Anyways, we have come across an architect (friend or a friend) who will take our job on as a private client arangement for $100/hour whilst on she is on maternity leave. 
She only does 1) measured drawings and 2) sketch design, and says that we then need to find a builder / draftsman to do the rest (i.e. approvals, structural verification etc) 
Is this a good way to go?  I like her work, but am concerned that I am overlooking something? Although maybe this will work out cheaper than using an architect for the whole thing? 
Please help,
frog_hopper

----------


## thebuildingsurv

Why use her at all ? Why not go straight to the drafty ? 100 bucks an hour for a bird on maternity leave  :No:  dont do it

----------


## silentC

Must admit I was thinking the same thing. I've never enlisted the services of an architect, but I'd expect to pay a fair bit for the privilege - not that it's not worth it mind you - but it depends on what you want. However to want to charge $100/hour for a job on the side, I reckon is a bit rich. But again I say that not knowing what the standard charge out rate is. 
Perhaps you would be better with a building designer. I had an entire dual occupancy dwelling of 4 beds + 3 beds designed, drawn up and DA submitted by a building designer for about $3,500. What we wanted was pretty standard - normal looking house, nothing fancy. If you want something 'out there' then you'll probably need an architect. 
It's a shame bitingmidge is away at present, he loves these questions  :Smilie:

----------


## frog_hopper

Well, I am thinking that it might be worth it for the 'ideas'.  We want to create a nice entrance (two story void or something that lets the light it), and despite looking at countless magazines, still can't work it out.  I thought I would have to have the ideas in place before i spoke to a drafty?

----------


## pawnhead

Get out your tape measure, do a scale sketch of the floor plan, take some pics of the house, and post it all up.
You may get some suggestions and ideas thrown at you.  :Wink:

----------


## Sir Stinkalot

Go for it!!!!  $100 per hour is cheap .... even for a job on the side. Standard charge out rates are around $120p/h graduate $150-180p/h architect $200p/h director. It might sound steep but it isn't often that you work by the hour. 
With that being said get a fixed price and a scope of what you are going to expect for your money. $100 per hour could quickly escalate and you may end up sending more than you want to and end up with less than you need. 
Make sure that she is using cad and will hand over the file, even if it is only sketch design. It will save the drafty time, and you money later on. Sounds like she is pulling out at sketch design due to not being registered yet (happens for a number of reasons, not necessarily no good at their job), or possibly no professional liability insurance (mmm sounds like somebody I know). 
We can go on and on about the differences between the drafty, building designer and architect but at the end of the day it depends on the quality of the individual, not what their formal training may be. The architect shouldn't be seen as only being able to do something 'out there' but a good architect will be able to bring your ideas to life, and also use their experience and knowledge on structure and materials, which hopefully will save you heart ache in the future. 
As for having the architect oversee the entire thing .... possibly not worth it. It is a small job by the sounds of it and it will be hard to find somebody interested. If the structure is basic the builder will be able to get by with the structural engineers details and the basic drawings required for the town planning (possibly DA) and building permit (or your equivalent). The kitchen can be detailed by the manufacturer as they will provide you with the best advise. 
Good luck with it .....

----------


## frog_hopper

OK thanks for advise - really appreciate everyone's comments. 
Just one more thing - can anyone advise how much detail i can expect in a sketch design?  Does this go into what materials are to be used or is it just of a high level sketch of things? 
Cheers

----------


## Sir Stinkalot

Your sketch design should be at a detail so that you can understand what is going on but perhaps not everything has been resolved. You can specify what level of detail that you want the architect to acheive, but at the end of the day it will take longer and cost more.  
The level that you are looking at achieving is to a stage where you can give the drawings to your drafty and they can build on them. 
Design development which is the next stage will formalise elevations, notes, dimensions etc. to a level suitable to gain permits.

----------


## DvdHntr

You do realise that you will need an engineer, to do the design?

----------


## derekcohen

Cheap is dear. 
The architect is trained to design. A draftsman is trained to draw someone elses design.  
The architect has a good idea of what costs what and should be able to design to a price. This is his/her area of expertise. The draftsman is trained to draw.  
The architect will have an in-depth knowledge of building materials. The draftsman is trained to draw. 
The architect is trained (and hopefully experienced) in dealing with local councils and their regulations. The draftsman is trained to draw. 
Should I go on? :Doh:  
Taking short cuts puts you at risk for expensive problems. Why do this. The fee you have been quoted is cheap. I am having a professional office built over the garage. The architect's fee (also as a private job) is about $3000. He has liaised with the builder, the three of us has met, sorted out costs, and I am happy to be left in the hands of a capable buider.  
Oh, my father and sister are both architects. Unfortunately dad is 93 and my sister lives in another country. I was initially trained as a quantity surveyor (including training as a draftsman). I do know what's what. 
Regards from Perth 
Derek

----------


## pawnhead

> You do realise that you will need an engineer, to do the design?

  You may need a geotech, and footings design, but your council may have a specification. Beyond that you won't necessarily have to have an engineer if the construction design is within code parameters.  

> A draftsman is trained to draw someone elses design. 
> The architect has a good idea of what costs what and should be able to design to a price. This is his/her area of expertise. The draftsman is trained to draw.  
> The architect will have an in-depth knowledge of building materials. The draftsman is trained to draw. 
> The architect is trained (and hopefully experienced) in dealing with local councils and their regulations. The draftsman is trained to draw.

  Perhaps that would describe a draftsman who's working for an architect, but a lot of them go out on their own after achieving competence in all the areas that you've outlined, and a lot of them put a bit of time into providing all the services that the public would require from an architect.
You can save yourself some serious dough if you find the right guy.  Unfortunately, he won't have 'B Arch' written after his name, but you'll just have to live with that.

----------


## derekcohen

> You can save yourself some serious dough ...

  What do you call serious douugh? $500 ... $1000 ... $1500 
On a job costing $25 - 100K? (or more). 
You'd risk that for $1000? (or less). 
Good luck. 
Regards from Perth 
Derek

----------


## johnc

I have used an Architect on a number of occassions from full drawings and service to just concept. The most recent was this year when renovating an office. $100 per hour is cheap, so far we have been very happy with the ideas and the end result. Quite honestly if you want a bog basic, boring unimaginative piece of work go the drafsman, the building inspector will love it as will the builder as it will be nice and simple and not to hard. Work with the Architect and you should still end up with something affordable but with a bit of style and flair. I'm with Derek and Sir Stinky the amount you pay compared to the total cost of the job is reasonable, and the end result should reflect the extra effort put in by someone with a few clues. FWIW I am not saying draftsman don't have ideas its just that I'm yet to find one who has. 
The office job cost $1500 (design fee), we needed an engineers report for loads on door openings and we did the drawing ourselves as the physical walls remained unchanged. What we paid for was internal layout, design ideas and colour, and it was worth every penny.

----------


## boban

Whatever you do get a fixed price.  Every day she works will cost you $800.  Can you afford that?  How can you monitor her "design hours".  Truth is that you cannot do it.  If she comes up with something that doesn't work for you, do you still pay her? 
I like using architects when I want ideas.  That said, some of the so called designs I've seen are very ordinary.   
Talking to a builder also has potential as far as designs are concerned.  Mostly because they are exposed to the work of architects and designers.  In my experience, there is very little that is not adopted from elsewhere.  The most notable exception to this is the amazing "gherkin building" in London. 
Did I say that you should get a fixed price before you proceed.

----------


## pawnhead

> You'd risk that for $1000? (or less).

  Well the architect that my sister hired five years ago cost me and her a lot more than that in his mistakes. 
He'd drawn up the plans and got them approved based on a surveyors report with an indemnifying disclaimer attached. I'd cleared my slate to start work, and when I rang the surveyor to define the boundaries, he came back a week later with a ridiculously high estimate to do the job. We got someone else with a cheaper estimate and it took three months to resolve the matter. It was some crap about the only defined boundaries on record, dated back to when farmer Jim swapped a pig for a metre of his neighbour's land, and my sisters boundary was supposed to be a foot *inside* where the proposed extension had been drawn, even after the 900mm setback was taken into account. It's just lucky for the architect that after paying a small fortune to formalize everything, she was able to register the boundary where the existing fence was located. If not, the extension would have been a metre smaller, and a bit impractical for her needs. 
When I was part way through the footings, I had a good look at the plans and noticed that the upstairs bathroom, partly in a roof space had a head height of just 1200mm at the wall. Apart from being illegal, it was obviously totally impractical, and had to be re-drawn by stealing floorspace from an adjoining landing and bedroom. If construction of the upper floor and drainage had started without modification of the plans, it would have been a disaster. Shear incompetence I'd call it, and my sister wasn't impressed with the loss of floor area. I can assure you it's not the first time I've picked up mistakes in an architects drawings either. Some of them major. 
His estimate on the job was $150,000, and it ended up costing over $50,000 before a shovel was turned, and over $300,000 in total, even after some cost cutting from the extravagant specifications on the plans. Some of the materials specified were ridiculously expensive and I don't think he had a clue, but I suppose they would have looked good in his resume. He'd specified a two storey sandstone veneered external wall along a narrow side path that would be barely noticeable from anywhere. The price was astronomical, so the wall was bagged by he bricklayers as they built the wall instead. If she'd known the cost in advance, she'd never have started the job, and she wouldn't be battling to pay the mortgage now. 
There's incompetent clowns in every game, and having a 'B Arch' in your name won't indemnify you from idiocy. I'd certainly advise my sister not to go for someone who was fresh out of UNI again. A draftsman with a bit of experience under his belt would be a much safer bet.
Of course some architects are very good, and they give 2:1 details of every tricky aspect, with every screw noted, and everything fits. But some just give you a 1:100 drawing that looks good on paper, but just doesn't work in a three dimensional world. It's the builder that finds this out, and often too late.

----------


## silentC

> The architect is trained to design. A draftsman is trained to draw someone elses design.

  You're missing the bloke in the middle: the building designer. He or she is not an architect but is more than a draftsman. They are conversant with the building code and know how to design a building that meets the standards for construction and energy conservation (well, our guy did, anyway). 
Being loosely connected with the building industry, I have heard many stories of the follies of architects  :Wink:

----------


## DvdHntr

> The architect is trained to design. A draftsman is trained to draw someone elses design.

  The architect does general drawings and the draughtsman structural drawings. The architects do not design anything. They simply place what they think is correct. 
You need a designer which is usually an engineer as they are the ones that do the structural design. The council will need to see that the design is structurally sound. The Building Designer is probably a builder that thinks he can do the engineers job.

----------


## silentC

Wrong. A building designer is a draughtsman who designs buildings, not a builder. The guy I used referred the structural design to an engineer. I'd say for the majority of residential jobs that encompasses the footings and the bracing and tie down specs. Trusses are designed by the truss company. The engineer will design the slab if there is one. The building designer can design floor and wall framing, no engineering qualification required if you use span tables etc. from suppliers (Duragal or LVL for example) or straight from the framing manual for hardwood or softwood framing.

----------


## Bleedin Thumb

> The architect does general drawings and the draughtsman structural drawings. The architects do not design anything. They simply place what they think is correct.

  
Where did you get that misinformation from! 
If placing things in places that are correct - both structurally and esthetically isn't design I don't know what is! 
I think Sir Stinkalot is on the money. Give your architect a clear brief of what you want to achieve. 
Get a clear costings of each stage that she will produce. 
IE Design concepts say $1200
DA drawings say $2,000
BA and working drawings etc etc. (if she can do it herself or get her to recommend someone (draftsman, engineer etc) that can work with her and get a price from them so its all agreed before anything starts. 
The old adage you get what you pay for... an Architectural draftsman may be good if you have a good sense of design yourself and you can express yourself on paper ....if not pay a professional.

----------


## DvdHntr

All I know is that achitects do not do actual structural design. They may nominate some sizes based on the information provided. I have never heard of a building designer before. So they are a draughtsman that looks up tables to get the member sizes correct. Just be careful that the whole project is structurally sound is my advice.

----------


## silentC

> So they are a draughtsman that looks up tables to get the member sizes correct.

  They do a bit more than that. I would expect someone who designs buildings to be conversant with the BCA, BASIX and the bushfire building guidelines. They should have a good idea of how a house is built, what products are on the market, and what local builders do in certain situations. I'd expect them to be able to come up with a floor plan that takes into account what the client wants, the standard sizes and clearances for particular rooms, the best way to orient a house in regard to prevailing winds, view and the Northern aspect. I'd expect them to be able to layout a floor plan to take best advantage of sheet sizes and to second guess construction problems that might arise. 
With the guy we used, my wife and I drew up a floor plan based on what we wanted. We sat down with him and went through it, listing what we definitely wanted, what would be nice to have, and what we wanted in terms of finish. He took it away, pulled it apart, put it back together so that it worked and showed it to us. We changed a few things and he drew up all the plans and submitted the DA. Cost: $1500 + council fees etc. 
When it was approved, he drew up the construction drawings (basically dimensioned floor plans, cross sections, sub-floor details, specifications) and had the engineer provide a separate engineer's detail which included strip footing and slab design, bracing plan, tie down details and specifications. He submitted these and obtained the construction certificate. Cost: $3000 including engineer's fee. We then built it. 
Some people here do not use an engineer at all. Not all projects require it. We preferred to use one for the slab design, the rest was just convenient. As far as I know, none of these things require a specific engineer's certification if they are covered by engineering details from the supplier, or are done according to an Australian standard. It's an insurance policy but not mandatory, or so I believe. Could be wrong...

----------


## pawnhead

> All I know is that achitects do not do actual structural design. They may nominate some sizes based on the information provided.

  Well they both work together if something is unusual in its concept. 
Joern Utzon originally designed the opera house with a sleeker, lower profile, with larger overhangs, but with the technology available at the time it was impossible:  

> The engineers tried for a long time to make the architects' original concept work, but finally both had to agree on a different approach. 
> At the conclusion of the intense discussions between Arup and Utzon on the final geometry of the roof shells, Arup said: 'We did not want to pull the architect down to hell, but we wanted him to pull us up to heaven'.  Clickypop

----------


## silentC

I think there are architects and there are architects. Any architect around here who did not also provide a full design & drafting service as well would probably go out of business. Structural Engineers have their place but they're not the be all and end all of building design. 
Should I tell the story here about the local engineer who designed a local builder's precast concrete walls but forgot to include reo. They were poured on site flat on the ground and when they tried to 
stand one up, it broke in half. That cost him a few ski trips.

----------


## pawnhead

> and had the engineer provide a separate engineer's detail which included strip footing and slab design, bracing plan, tie down details and specifications. He submitted these and obtained the construction certificate.

  For structural steel you may also need shop drawings. For my sisters' place, I did them myself and saved her a few grand. It cost me a lot of after work hours, but in the end everything fitted like a glove, and the crane operator was impressed.  :Smilie:

----------


## silentC

If you use a system like Duragal, there is an engineering certification that covers the system in general and as long as you adhere to the span tables and installation directions, it's all covered by OneSteel's engineering department. We just had the designer give the option of steel or fire-treated timber for the external floor framing in the construction details (because we hadn't made up our minds which way to go). 
But yes I guess for anything site-specific you'd need engineer's details for. I wanted to put in a 6 metre universal beam over a carport once, so I went to an engineer and while I waited he did a freehand sketch with connections and footing details on a bit of foolscap and put his stamp on it for $80! 
The guy I used to design my slab in Sydney was over 80. He designed buildings and other structures at Randwick race course in his youth. He used to wear a tie and a pullover with a kid skateboarding on the front. When I first met him I thought "what have I done hiring this bloke" but all the guys at the council knew him. Not sure if that was a good or bad thing. Slab is still there as far as I know.

----------


## DvdHntr

I just have never heard of a building designer before.

----------


## silentC

Well, if you haven't heard of them, they mustn't exist, right? 
They've even got an association: http://www.bdaa.com.au/ 
And our bloke is a member: http://www.findadesigner.com.au/view...esigner_id=916

----------


## silentC

Interesting stat from the BDAA site:    

> The BDAA estimates that 75-80% of residential work is currently designed by building designers. These figures appear to be consistent with the findings of other groups.

----------


## Bleedin Thumb

Thanks for that link Silent.

----------


## Sir Stinkalot

> There's incompetent clowns in every game, and having a 'B Arch' in your name won't indemnify you from idiocy. I'd certainly advise my sister not to go for someone who was fresh out of UNI again. A draftsman with a bit of experience under his belt would be a much safer bet.

  Thanks for the laugh .... this is the best thread I have come across in some time.  
You (and your sister) have been burnt by going with the cheapest priced architect around ..... graduating doesn't mean that you are ready to start running your own projects. It would appear that you didn't do any research into your chosen (graduate) architect and they obviously were not up to the task.  *If you were charged with murder would you have a graduate lawyer fresh out of uni to represent you or would you go with somebody with some experience ?????*  
In all fields university is a training ground, however there is many years of industry experience required to be fully trained.  
An architect here in Victoria needs 5 years full time study, then a minimum of 2 years industry training under the supervision of a registered architect spending a minimum time on a number of different competences and then sit an exam and finally an interview board. 
I am not trying to attack you personally pawnhead, but you seem quite happy to slander any architect based on your bad experience using a uni graduate. As you said yourself a drafty with a bit of *experience* is a better bet ..... anybody with experience is a better bet. 
Building designers are restricted on what projects that they can work on. From memory it is 4+ storey .... however I could be wrong. This is just based off working with a building designer for 18 months.  
This has allowed the building designer to become very competitive in the residential field which is why many architects are not interested in the smaller jobs. The residential market is filled with mums and dad who would rather save $10k on the design of their $300k house so they can get a new plasma tv to impress their friends. These people are more trouble than they are worth and it is preferable to do commercial, high end residential or developer projects. 
I don't know how structural engineers ended up getting labelled as designers. They are trained and experienced in the behaviour of structures. If they are willing to undertake design work then they obviously are light on for work and might best be avoided. You may be prepared to have a shot at your own engineering but at the end of the day if something goes wrong and the brick veneer wall falls on your new plasma tv then you only have yourself to blame. 
Your new house, extension, renovation is a big investment .... why cut corners of a small percentage of the overall price?

----------


## derekcohen

This thread resembles my pet peeve. I am fiercely Australian, but I get so frustrated and saddened that this country tends to dumb down and actively support the lowest common demoninator. 
In so many professions it is possible to find a "look alike", that is someone who sets themself up as a "expert", "professional", whatever, and does so without going through the formal training. What is worse is that this is often supported at governmental level. 
Perhaps I am considered old fashioned by some, but to me a "professional" is someone who meets the Internationally accepted and respected standards for that particular profession.  
In regard to this thread, do we accept that a "designer" is the equivalent of an "architect", who has 5 years university training. In my own profession, a clinical psychologist requires 6+ years university and 2 years supervised practical experience. Yet the government registers 3 and 4 year graduates as "psychologists" as permits them to do whatever work they like believing that the inexperienced or untrained will self-limit themselves. Anyone can become a "counsellor" with a 2 week correspondence course. There are many other professions where the same dumbing down occurs. Good grief, entrants to teacher courses at university now no longer are required to have finished hgh school (year 12)! How ludicrous is that! What next, GPs that have a 3 year training?  
Some may argue that times have changed and that different criteria are now permitted. I have had some say to me that they have every right to do as they please. Or that the public have the right to choose. But the public are not aware of these things and are not aware that they are being short-changed. Standards just continue a downward spiral. Why bother with education at all? 
Go and use the services of a undertrained person if it will save you a few Dollars. Make it easy for anyone to do specialised work and you will attract all those who are not willing or capable of going the extra yards. Keep dropping the entry requirements, and you keep dropping the standards. 
(This is not about individuals, some who may be very talented. It is about groups, many of the members of whom are not). 
Rant over. 
Regards from Perth 
Derek

----------


## pawnhead

> Thanks for the laugh .... this is the best thread I have come across in some time.  
> You (and your sister) have been burnt by going with the cheapest priced architect around ..... graduating doesn't mean that you are ready to start running your own projects. It would appear that you didn't do any research into your chosen (graduate) architect and they obviously were not up to the task.

  Hey, I didn't want the job, and I had nothing to do with it until after the council had approved it. I didn't like the design, and if she'd asked me I would have told her to hunt around for an experienced draftsman. I knew that a job of this size for a close relative had the potential to cause a lot of grief, and no potential for profit. I did the work 'do and charge' and I worked a lot of un-billed overtime because it was way over budget. I would have been better off if I'd never taken it on and I knew it before I started, but I was doing her a favour.
The architect came to her from the referral of a friend, and I honestly don't know how much or how little experience he'd had, but he looked very young to me.  

> you seem quite happy to slander any architect based on your bad experience using a uni graduate.

  Where do you get that idea? I'm not slandering *any* architect. I described a particular incident as 'sheer incompetence'. Designing a bathroom that's illegal and doesn't fit, then modifying it after it's been drawn to your attention by the builder, well after construction has started, and having to dramatically reduce the planned size of a proposed bedroom, is IMO an episode of 'sheer incompetence'. It stared you right in the face if you simply superimposed the bathroom elevation over the Eastern wall elevation which showed the roof pitch and floor levels clearly marked.
It's a very basic design consideration, and I'm just calling a spade a spade.
He also should have gotten the survey ratified before designing anything. We could have lost over a metre, making it impractical to build. He did get a survey done, but there was a big disclaimer stamped on it saying something to the effect of 'No guarantees. Boundaries not registered'. This basically made it just a useless scrap of paper that you shouldn't be designing anything to. I certainly wasn't going to start building without having the boundaries ratified. You'd be an idiot if you did, and the client may have you in court some day if there were any problems with their neighbours in future. Besides, the council may have requested surveyors certification of boundary set backs when the job was completed. He should have *known* that and sorted it out first.   
And he was way out in his pricing estimate, designing extravagant specifications without costing them first, but that's not slander. I'm simply stating a fact.  
Apart from that, I've simply stated that I've seen a lot of mistakes from architects over the past 25 years (most of them rather minor). I've made a lot of mistakes myself and we're all human. Having letters after your name won't guard against them, and I'd give a *lot* more weight to real life experience over tertiary education, so I simply stated that if you found the *right guy* you could save a fair bit of dough, and get the same service as someone with a B Arch.   

> Of course some architects are very good, and they give 2:1 details of every tricky aspect, with every screw noted, and everything fits. But some just give you a 1:100 drawing that looks good on paper, but just doesn't work in a three dimensional world. It's the builder that finds this out, and often too late.

  I think you've taken my comments the wrong way. There's a lot of great architects out there with brilliant  designs, and if you want something that's 'off the wall' then that's their specialty, but there's a lot of drafties out there that are more than competent in designing a nice extension to an existing home, especially since frog_hopper seems to have a good idea of what he wants in the first place.  

> Get out your tape measure, do a scale sketch of the floor plan, take some pics of the house, and post it all up.
> You may get some suggestions and ideas thrown at you.

  I don't have any letters after my name (But I almost did. They changed my builders certificate course to a diploma course whilst I was midway through, so I might have been a 'Dip Bld'. As it is, I'm just a 'Dip Stick' builder  :Biggrin: ), but I'm confident that I could come up with some ideas if I saw a floor plan. Of course whether they're any good or not is another matter, but they'll cost him nothing, and If he likes the ideas, he could take them straight to a draftsman.
Of course I may be borrowing from my own personal experience with well designed architecture. I've worked with a lot of good architects: http://i7.photobucket.com/albums/y26...ke/JohnDan.jpg http://i7.photobucket.com/albums/y26...leBeach6-1.jpg http://i7.photobucket.com/albums/y26...PointPiper.jpg http://i7.photobucket.com/albums/y26...gueville20.jpg http://i7.photobucket.com/albums/y26...veBeautyPt.jpg http://i7.photobucket.com/albums/y26...jGreenwich.jpg http://i7.photobucket.com/albums/y26...rlingPoint.jpg http://i7.photobucket.com/albums/y26...foldused-1.jpg http://i7.photobucket.com/albums/y26...00724515AM.jpg http://i7.photobucket.com/albums/y26...-200724515.jpg http://i7.photobucket.com/albums/y26...00724508AM.jpg http://i7.photobucket.com/albums/y26...07105430AM.jpg  

> You may be prepared to have a shot at your own engineering but at the end of the day if something goes wrong and the brick veneer wall falls on your new plasma tv then you only have yourself to blame.

  You're not allowed to design your own engineering beyond taking off approved span tables, and whatever you build must be inspected for structural integrity. That could be by the council, or it could be by your own certifier. Engineers often overdesign to cover themselves, which costs the client even more, and they're not immune to mistakes themselves.
And I'm not slandering any engineers either if that's what you're thinking.  :Tongue:

----------


## pawnhead

> In my own profession, a clinical psychologist requires 6+ years university and 2 years supervised practical experience. Yet the government registers 3 and 4 year graduates as "psychologists" as permits them to do whatever work they like believing that the inexperienced or untrained will self-limit themselves.

  Watch out Derek. Before you know it, they'll be coming to take your job in the name of efficiency. 
There's a very interesting and believable science fiction tale here, called Manna.  :2thumbsup: 
It's written by Marshall Brain, a well respected computer science teacher, and founder of the popular website "How Stuff Works". 
I for one will be welcoming our new robot overlords.  :Wink:

----------


## silentC

> The residential market is filled with mums and dad who would rather save $10k on the design of their $300k house so they can get a new plasma tv to impress their friends. These people are *more trouble than they are worth* and it is preferable to do commercial, high end residential or developer projects.

  That's the kind of attitude that puts the mums and dads off architects and why they have a reputation as being a bunch of arty farty tossers  :Smilie:  So the message is "don't use a building designer because he hasn't been to uni, but don't see an architect because he can't be bothered with your poxy little house unless you want to appear on _Better Homes & Gardens_".   

> In so many professions it is possible to find a "look alike", that is someone who sets themself up as a "expert", "professional", whatever, and does so without going through the formal training. What is worse is that this is often supported at governmental level.

  It is up to the client to make sure the person they are using has the appropriate qualifications and experience. I'll take a practical person with a background in building normal bog-standard houses over any of the people who have designed the birdhouses that dot the coast down here. These people are university trained in trying to be different. I may be wrong but there seems to be a certain amount of ego attached to the profession that goes above and beyond what the client wants. I recall the bewildered look on my neighbours face when I asked her how the simple renovation she described to me 12 months earlier had turned into a virtual knock down and rebuild. She still doesn't know why that pole holding up the front balcony had to be 20 degrees off vertical and extend 1 metre above the roof line. 
My point is simply that not everyone requires an 'architect designed' home and there are other alternatives, including doing it yourself, or using the services of a building designer. I'm a little bit put out by the insinuation that my new house could be in some way flawed because I didn't use a guy who probably has *several* plasma screen TVs.

----------


## thebuildingsurv

I have no hesitation slandering architects  :Biggrin:

----------


## Ian Wells

there seems to be not so much an aversion to quality in the Australian market as more of a naievity , I've spoken to lots of marketing people ( from here and overseas) and they frequently describe Australia as a discount market where a cheaper price has higher emotional value than quality. Also 'newness' has great status to Australian consumers, we are great early adopters of technology. Thus the preference for the big "plasma" rather than spending a bit extra on getting the base structure right, especialy if the neighbors and rellies can't see and comment on where you've spent the extra $30,000.
Having said that, I'm sure that Australian architects are just as much a product of the culture as their clients, lest any of them look down smugly from their Ivory anodised aluminium panel towers.
Cultural cringe? maybe a cultural lack of self confidence. 
cheers

----------


## Ronaldo451

Crikey Frog Hopper, your situation has certainly touched a few raw nerves and caused some bad flashbacks!! Without slandering any particular profession, trade, vocation or calling I can appreciate the comments from all sides but they mostly relate to particular, individual situations, and that appears to be the nub. 
My advice is to insulate yourself as much as possible from disappointment and or cost surprises by trying to ensure you get the very best 'value added' worth from this engagement. 
The expressions 'horses for courses' and 'why get a Rolls Royce if a Holden will do?' come to mind. $100/hr may appear dear but is probably cheap for the ideas and possibilities beyond the mundane range of mere mortals, no matter how experienced. On the other hand $100/hour for the equivalent of digging ditches is not value. If she is fair dinkum she would probably be able to give you a fair direction on where her time and costs are best utilised and who else needs to get involved in the other bits. 
When we were having an extension done some years ago I gave the plans to four builders and asked them for a price. One didn't bother replying, one dropped in a written quote, one telephoned with a price and one came and inspected the site, spoke to us about the job, gave us his views on the best way to tackle a few issues and then sent in a written quote broken up into the major components with a schedule of costs for possible variations. He wasn't the cheapest (or the dearest), but guess who got the job! He came in on price and time and the quality was exceptional. Short story I suppose is it is to your advantage to suss out and be comfortable with who and what you are paying for. 
If you spend a bit of preparation time with her nailing down exactly what you want from her, what design impact she can provide 'over and above' the obvious/ordinary, putting some parameters around what you are paying for and the total expected price (which should not be exceeded without prior approval) for her part up front, you may save some consternation later on. 
There's goodens and shonks in most areas - up to you how you select and sort em out. Good luck

----------


## silentC

> Thus the preference for the big "plasma" rather than spending a bit extra on getting the base structure right, especialy if the neighbors and rellies can't see and comment on where you've spent the extra $30,000.

  I honestly don't believe there would be too many people who forgo an architect for the sake of a plasma TV. Yes, I imagine there probably are people who think like that, but come on! 
I think there is definitely a perception that architects are for people with money who want an 'award winning' design. I think the motivation for enlisting one in a lot of cases is no different to the motivation that might lead some people to reserve some cash for the big screen TV - prestige and impressing the neighbours. But I actually believe that most people buy big TVs because they like watching TV! 
I reject the notion that only a trained architect can design a house that is structurally sound - in fact a lot of the creations of architects require a lot of input from structural engineers just to make them feasible at all. I don't believe it's necessary to spend $30,000 on such things to get them right. If you follow the standards set out, use an engineer for the important bits, and don't try anything off the wall, then you can't go wrong. 
Maybe the reason we have building designers is down to the attitude in Stinky's post. Maybe they're filling a gap being left by the university-trained professionals who are looking to bigger and better things. Let them design skyscrapers and cliff-top birdhouses for the baby boomers and the rest of us ordinary mortals can get on with building our timber-framed, truss-roofed common or garden variety cottages.

----------


## pharmaboy2

I reckon there are 3 problems with architecture. 
1 design without cost knowledge given to the client.  this takes the form of say a cantilevered section with glazing below to give a 'floating effect' - I have seen designs like that with all the related massively complex structure that goes to support it, that easily added $100k to the job on its own, when for instance, a polished ss post could have been placed, looked the business and saved 95k - sometime during the build, the builder informs the client of how much that little detail cost, and the client is belatedly upset!  Also so much cash is wasted on trifling things like specifying $1500 toilets, $400 towel rails and the like. 
2 Boring architecture.  The number of bog std looking buildings been designed by archtects is astounding.  Pawnheads list of piccies above with work designed by architects should be an exciting series of piccies, but it could easily be out of country monthly, or "Conservative Housing".  
3  Clients.  clients too scared and lacking self confidence to such a degree, that they want a house that will "blend in " with their neighbours.  This drives 2 above as well. 
The 3 above create the nexus that we have that project homes can build for $600 a sqm, but architects seem to need $2000 and up / sqm.  Its hard to see a 40sq house for $800k and see a bargain when it can be done for $200k by McDonald Jones or whoever.  So we have a picture in the minds of the public that architecture means $1500 toilets, $150pm tiles and $3000 wall ovens rather than architecure meaning good design and modern design - well lit space, liveable rooms etc. 
Architecture needs to be rescued from the well healed and tasteless and applied to the general quality of building in this country.....

----------


## derekcohen

There are too many over-generalisations here to reply to. So I will just add a comment or two and you can take these for what they appear to be worth to you. 
Firstly, we should not be pointing fingers at individuals, whether they be architects or designers. There will always be good guys and bad guys in every pile. A qualification does not immunize you against bad service. We should instead focus on the professions as a group, and what they have to offer by way of their training. 
The thing about training is that it provides a mind set. This is not always something that one developes without specific training. Of course it is possible to do so, but I am not referring to some exceptional individuals. At the same time, I accept that some individuals just do not get "it" even when "trained". 
The mind set I am referring to is the ability to think in a way that produces solutions. The abillity to get into the issue and grasp the problem, and "see" the options and alternatives. We call this "creativity".  
Every professional goes through a training that encourages the development of different skills/ways of looking at a problem. I expect that an architect and a designer or draftsman will come at a solution from a different perspective, one that reflects their experiences in training and life. 
At the end of the day, whoever you choose, it should be the client who makes his/her needs known to the archiect/designer/draftsman. It is up to them to interpret these criteria.  
Do your homework and decide for yourself if the person you have selected is versed in doing the work you visualise. 
Regards from Perth 
Derek

----------


## Canetoad

Thinking back over the years the thing that I have found affects my attitude towards each individual architect that I have been involved with has been the way they treat the relationships with the builder. The ones I remember fondly have seen us as professionals in our own right and tried to work with us rather than see us as naughty boys trying to cut every corner and pull the wool over their eyes. I know that there are some dodgy builders out there maybe even a lot but there are also many of us that take pride in our work. The them and us attitude that has developed helps no one.

----------


## silentC

> The abillity to get into the issue and grasp the problem, and "see" the options and alternatives. We call this "creativity".

  This is the crux of the issue. House building is so well understood and established that it's not necessary to re-invent the wheel every day of the week. The only time you need any special level of creativity is when you are asked to design something out of the ordinary. The standard house of the kind that is built every day of the week has a set of known and well understood problems that have known and well understood solutions. You don't necessarily need to pay someone to solve them from basic principles. In the majority of cases, the person who would know most about the problems and the solutions would be the builder, not the designer or architect. 
It's no different to my game. We have jobs that are run of the mill. We wheel out the standard modules and stitch them together to deliver what the client wants. Every now and then, someone comes along with something that we've never done before, so you're in new territory and you have to use your noggin, not to apply what you already know, but to create from scratch. No prizes for guessing which costs more and which tasks are allocated to the university graduates and which to the experienced hands. 
When is bitingmidge back from his holiday? He'd love this one  :Smilie:

----------


## Bleedin Thumb

> This is the crux of the issue. House building is so well understood and established that it's not necessary to re-invent the wheel every day of the week. The only time you need any special level of creativity is when you are asked to design something out of the ordinary.

  
Why would anyone want ordinary! The creativity of an architect is not resolving design issues it coming up with the *design* in the first place. 
We all live in boxes that are divided up into spaces that mostly conform to a set ratio. Anyone with a bit of experience can draw a box and call it a house and if that box satisfies you great ..go for it.  
If however you want your house to reflect your lifestyles, your taste and philosophy of art, nature and your interaction between these things then you look to a professional that has studied these esoteric variables and understands how to develop these into reality. Someone who can not only design something that fufills your brief but who can do in a way that is sympathetic to the site and its surrounds. 
Not all architects are good and as with any profession you will have bad experiences (this is the same as with draftsman and building designers) 
Sorry Silent, it is _vital_ that we reinvent the wheel with every design as this defines us as human - create art mate not excrement! :Biggrin:   
(I'm not saying you live in a shytty box either! :Tongue: )

----------


## silentC

Like I said, arty farty tossers! This is where we diverge from reality and head into la la land. A house is not art! It's a box to live in and protect your stuff from the elements! 
Yes, all very well in affluent Sydney, but down here in the country mate, we don't care about philosophy of art or whatever, we just want a nice looking house, that looks like a house, and has a roof and room for a beer fridge. Some of the monstrosities that the baby boomers are building here are hideous - but because they're architect designed, we must all have our heads up our rears if we can't see them for the esoteric manifestations of the owner's personality that they are. In fact, that's _exactly_ what they are. That's why I hate them, because I have no time for the people who live in them!

----------


## Bleedin Thumb

> A house is not art! It's a box to live in and protect your stuff from the elements!!

  That's the philosophy of the post modernist to a tee! you may feel that your tastes are simple as you have turned your back on the complexity of social integration by hiding in the perceived simplicity of country life, however what you have not realised Silent, is that by choosing to live in a "Shytte Box" you have in fact embraced the post modernist ethos which of course makes you an intellectual wanker of the highest order. :Biggrin:  :Tongue:

----------


## silentC

Damn!! 
OK, I wish I lived perched on the edge of a south coast cliff  in a concrete and corrugated iron birdcage designed by a man called Nigel who wears a black skivvy, uses scented aftershave and owns a Maltese terrier called Verdell. Is that better?

----------


## Bleedin Thumb

:Biggrin: Ahh now you have grasped the concept.

----------


## DvdHntr

But after the inital concept the Engineer come along and moves the house away from the edge, replaces the iron with stainless steel, changes the birdcage shape into a dome and completely redesigns the rest of the structure.

----------


## thebuildingsurv

Then the architect bills his clients to change his plans and then owner gets a quotes from builders and end up scrapping the architects ideas and get a draftsman to draw up some plans that are a bit more realistic and feasible money wise.

----------


## Bleedin Thumb

And the client insists on remodelling the facade to recreate a villa that she once spent a week in in Tuscany, and rethinks the colour scheme that took two weeks of negotiation to settle on. 
By this time Nigel has thrown a Hissy fit and left it up to the builder to work out whats going on! :Biggrin:

----------


## Big Shed

I was reminded of this thread as I drove through Bendigo this afternoon. 
We have recently had 2 examples of the architects' skills put up in Bendigo. One is the new police station, never seen a bigger a***tion of a building in my life, the other is the new Bendigo Bank HQ, already named Rubic's Cube, need I say more? 
In the case of the police station, some offices are unable to be used because of light/heat/sun problems, when I see the building I can believe it. 
Apart from both buildings being an eyesore in their own right (a value judgement, I know) they are totally out of character with their surroundings.

----------


## DvdHntr

Some architects are good but when they don't even know what it says in the BCA about ventilation of a sub floor, you have to be worried.

----------


## silentC

> they don't even know what it says in the BCA about ventilation of a sub floor

  That question is beneath them  :Wink:

----------


## pawnhead

> Pawnheads list of piccies above with work designed by architects should be an exciting series of piccies, but it could easily be out of country monthly, or "Conservative Housing".

  Yeh, there's nothing 'off the wall' there, but just some examples of well designed projects that I've worked on myself.
This one was a good interpretation of art deco, and I liked it:   
And this one was my favourite. Certainly not the most opulent, but it's how I'd design my house if I had the dollars. With exposed poles and trusses inside and out, it's a good example of an engineer and architect working together on design. It had a nice wet edge pool and views of Whale Beach:        
I built the trusses in place. I would have just oiled them or something. The painters didn't read the spec properly and painted over the bolts, so they had to paint all the bolt heads galv with an artists brush.  :Biggrin: 
There's a pond under the front steps, and I installed a 200 year old Balinese front door.
The place was gorgeous IMO.

----------


## DvdHntr

> Yeh, there's nothing 'off the wall' there, but just some examples of well designed projects that I've worked on myself.
> This one was a good interpretation of art deco, and I liked it:   
> And this one was my favourite. Certainly not the most opulent, but it's how I'd design my house if I had the dollars. With exposed poles and trusses inside and out, it's a good example of an engineer and architect working together on design. It had a nice wet edge pool and views of Whale Beach:        
> I built the trusses in place. I would have just oiled them or something. The painters didn't read the spec properly and painted over the bolts, so they had to paint all the bolt heads galv with an artists brush. 
> There's a pond under the front steps, and I installed a 200 year old Balinese front door.
> The place was gorgeous IMO.

  If you get the right architect that understands structures they can do some good things. My issue are the ones that don't think the design through in terms of how it can work structurally.

----------


## DvdHntr

> That question is beneath them

  I had a guy that said I couldn't use hardwood timber to cantilever out on a deck. I said OK and changed the design to use concrete footings cantilevering so that the timber was supported both sides. I then enquired and he said that the timber needed to be treated pine for termite protection. So I had to point out that the hardwood was better for protection and you can actually treat hardwood as well. Then I found out that the reason that termites were a problem was that he was planning to put the timber on the ground directly.

----------


## pharmaboy2

> Like I said, arty farty tossers! This is where we diverge from reality and head into la la land. A house is not art! It's a box to live in and protect your stuff from the elements! 
> Yes, all very well in affluent Sydney, but down here in the country mate, we don't care about philosophy of art or whatever, we just want a nice looking house, that looks like a house, and has a roof and room for a beer fridge. Some of the monstrosities that the baby boomers are building here are hideous - but because they're architect designed, we must all have our heads up our rears if we can't see them for the esoteric manifestations of the owner's personality that they are. In fact, that's _exactly_ what they are. That's why I hate them, because I have no time for the people who live in them!

  "looks like a house" - usually this means it looks like a house to other people - ie a socially acceptable house.  Acceptance is up there in human requirements. 
Architecture as art requires clients with open wallets and absolute trust for design in the architect. 
So silentC, you have hit the proverbial nail on the head as far as Alain De Botton's concerned.  You care what others think of you by virtue of the house you live in - you want acceptance.  The person building the 'monstrosity" in others eyes, doesnt need nor want acceptance from the locals - their self esteem isnt built on others opinions - they like it, and thats enough.  Further chances are they dont give a crapola if it will sell in the real estate market in time. 
The last point is probably the most important.  In most suburbs and towns building something avant garde with only 2 bedrooms and not with brick and tile has higher risk come selling time - so must of us avoid such risks. 
So all in all, they dont expect you to be able to see their house in the same way - they simply dont expect anything of you at all - havent even given it a second thought (once through council that is !   :Wink:   )

----------


## derekcohen

> Architecture as art requires clients with open wallets and absolute trust for design in the architect.

  This totally misses the point. 
Good design is a combination of aesthetics and economy. Good design - art - is doing the best with the available finances.  
To assume that art is only for the wealthy is a bigotted perspective.  
Just because some may have large pockets (and can employ who they want and build what they want), this is no promise that the result will be either art or even inhabitable.  
Equally, small pockets determine nothing either.  
It is not the size of the pocket that determines an artistic design - it is the vision of the designer to work with the materials at hand. No different from woodworking really! 
Regards from Perth 
Derek

----------


## silentC

> You care what others think of you by virtue of the house you live in - you want acceptance.

  I suppose there is an element of concern for what other's might think, although I don't think it's as central as you believe. I wouldn't want people to see my house and make judgements about my personality based on it. I want them to see a conservative house that doesn't try to be anything more than a house - but only when they come inside and see my CDs, DVDs and books would they be able to tell anything about me or my family. The house is just a comfortable place to live, not an extension of our collective personality. 
Actually the shape of my house is determined more by the rooms we wanted, the shape of the block, the direction of the view relative to north, the rural setting and the building method we chose to use than anything else. There were a few things we wanted: tin not tiles; verandahs - but these were practical decisions. I also like gables, so we had to have some of those. The triangle on top of a box fits my pre-school interpretation of a house. You could probably say that we were being safe by choosing a conventional design. It's interesting to think about and analyse the reasons behind it. 
I agree that some people probably don't really care what anyone else thinks - and let's face it in some cases that is the only polite way to explain some of the monstrosities. I don't think that explains all of them though. A house is a very visual thing and if there isn't at least a healthy serve of "look at me" involved, I'll eat my beret.

----------


## pharmaboy2

derek, it doesnt miss the point because what I'm defining is not what you are. Good design may well be a combination of aesthetics and economy (economy of purpose ?).  BUT good design doesnt necessarily  equate to art. 
While its difficult to define, art usually requires some human creativity and communicates something to others.  Good design can encompass a cog wheel inside a tool - but i dont think anyone would consider it art.  different terms with different meanings. 
The rest I agree with.  However to build a radical house requires either extreme levels of confidence or enough dough to not care.  trying to sell a one off house in a conservative market where the majority of the population think its  a monstrosity, is a gamble - most people dont gamble with their biggest asset.  thats the point about money, and we havent even delved into how the average AD house is $2500 a m versus $500 for a project home - but i grant you, you dont necessarily need $2500/m to get art - its just mightily difficult on $500pm

----------


## bitingmidge

> Good design can encompass a cog wheel inside a tool - but i dont think anyone would consider it art.

  I'm thinking about responding to this thread, but clearly, it'd be casting pearls to the swine. 
Of course it's art! 
P  :Biggrin:  :Biggrin:  :Biggrin:

----------


## derekcohen

> Good design can encompass a cog wheel inside a tool - but i dont think anyone would consider it art.

  For myself that could be art - not just any cog, but one that has been designed with an _elegant_ simplicity.   

> we havent even delved into how the average AD house is $2500 a m versus $500 for a project home

  You are still equating money and art.  
When you search the newspaper ads for available homes on sale you will notice a wide variety of prices for what appear to be very similar homes, say 4 bedrooms and 2 bathrooms. Then the person down the street decides to sell their house and expects to get the same as his neighbour, Joe Bloggs, because it is the same size, number of rooms, etc. Then you visit and see the two homes side-by-side. 
What the above examples do not take into account is design, finishings, materials, etc. Cheap Project  homes do tend to use bottom of the rung finishes, since they are being built to a price.  
You can make art with a low price and a high price. It always comes down to the flair and the inventiveness of the designer and builder. Putting these together for me is what I call "art". 
Regards from Perth 
Derek

----------


## pharmaboy2

Silent, the other great philosophical view on housing, is that its "safety" - my home is my castle, its where  the outside world stops and my world begins, so feeling ['safe' and "comfortbale" is important.  Just drive down the street and notice how little glazing there is in th e front of houses, and even then how the curtains ae always drawn - we do that to escape the outside world and seek security - whoah - gettign a bit too deep there pb... 
The "look at me" thing I agree is common, but I always judge that one by the maximum width, maximum height front with biggest cover to the front door I can get - the classic example is the Mc Mansion - all garage, height and look at me. When its an AD example, its often  a good bet that the owners requirements (wants,needs) have driven the design - the architect whose into aesthetics and building as art i believe is more subtle when given an open brief.

----------


## pharmaboy2

"You are still equating money to art." 
no - I'm equating Architect designed buidings with money, just because its AD doesnt make it art, not does it make it art if it costs $2500pm. $20k on drawings to most people is 2 upgraded bathrooms, a double garage, a workshop etc. If I designed something original and artistic, I can almost guarantee that no -one would build it for project home pricing plus 20% or even 50% - originality in building comes at a cost.  Archtiect designed houses are expensive to design and expensive to build, to deny it is to claim the Yarra is a pretty as the Swan!

----------


## silentC

I suppose what I am saying is that I didn't put a lot of thought into making a statement with my house - I was more concerned about the inside of the house and the size of the shed  :Smilie:  
So I suppose in one way, that supports the argument that a house is an expression of self in that it shows I don't give a fig for houses as art - and that I have a cynical view of those who do. Perhaps a bit of cultural cringe at work there. I also glaze over at the eyeballs when people try to explain to me why a canvas splashed with paint is worthy of my respect  :Smilie:  
But getting back to my original point on entering this thread - I think there is certainly a place for designers with a practical view to building design - because there are people like me, who need some assistance with in designing a house, but don't need the full blown services of an architect, with all that they entail.

----------


## derekcohen

> Archtiect designed houses are expensive to design and expensive to build

  I don't think that you understand what I have been saying. 
You are still equating money and art, and money and design.  
My father, an architect, used to design "economy" housing - estates for the low income earners. He also designed old age homes, which similarly had to be built to a low figure. He did not design little boxes. The designs were aesthetically pleasing and real people were proud to live in them. The designs won awards, not for their low cost, but for what could be done with the low budget. He understood what was wanted and he looked for a way to put it together in a handsome, practical and economic way. That is art. That is good design. That is a good use of available economy. In this example, the architect used money wisely. 
A few years ago, when I began to put together options for the office addition that we are now beginning, I went to see what one of the local builders could offer. Their design service consisted of a so-called draftsman - I say "so-called" because he had just recently learned to use the CAD program the company had invested in. He was totally - TOTALLY - devoid of any creative ideas - that is, how to use the space available, how to make the design pleasing and aesthetic ... I could go on with shock and horror. His idea was a little box perched on top of the roof. Now this design and construction (if I had been silly enough to accept it) would have cost me thousands of dollars in value lost since it would have depreciated the value of the residence. The current design - by an architect - is both wonderful in design and economic in construction costs. The two people involved are like chalk and cheese. 
Do not view architects and the people who use them as extravagent. They are, instead, individuals who wish to use their resources wisely, and seek the aid of an expert to do so. 
Again, I speak of groups, not individuals here.  
Regards from Perth 
Derek

----------


## bitingmidge

Thank-you Derek, for making all my points while I was away, and ever so much more eloquently than I would have! 
As an architect who for many years was designing houses which sold for less than $2,000 US, I am continually appalled at the stupid typecasting which occurs. 
The staple of my last suburban practice was exactly the sort of service described in the first post of this thread. Essentially I was engaged to ADD VALUE and while the market in which I chose to work at the time was in the lower end of the spectrum, there were (and are) many ways of delivering a well designed product in an economical manner. 
No-one expects to get Mercedes quality from a Hyundai, yet for reasons that continue to escape me that is what people expect from their houses. 
I am the first to admit that architecture, as with any trade or profession is not without it's dud practitioners.   My own observations would have less than 15% of the profession practicing at the very top level of proficiency. 
On the other hand my own observations tell me that 85% of clients reckon they know it all as well, and part of my craft has been in subtly convincing them that perhaps there are better places to place the kitchen than "facing the street". 
Australia as a country is devoid of the cultural imprinting or "flair" which gives other countries an innate sense of style.   
For the likes of Silent  :Wink:  and so many others, it's all the same once the lights are out anyway, and even with the lights on a few beers will fix it, so there's no need to waste good beer money on quality design. 
We carry that thinking through in most aspects of our life here:  Cars are just for getting us from point a to b, taking food is just a means of keeping us alive till the pub opens, houses keep us dry till the footy starts or if we're really lucky, provide somewhere to hang the plasma screen. 
In other places, each of those is an activity that adds value to life, a sensation to be _experienced_. 
Is my jetlag still showing?? 
P  :Biggrin:  :Biggrin:  :Biggrin:

----------


## Carpenter

> Do not view architects and the people who use them as extravagent. They are, instead, individuals who wish to use their resources wisely, and seek the aid of an expert to do so. 
> Again, I speak of groups, not individuals here.  
> Regards from Perth 
> Derek

  Great to see you had such a positive experience Derek, its how it should be. However, my experience with this mob is that precious few architects cut the mustard. The overwhelming majority seem to be rather disturbed individuals riddled with insecurities manifested from being laughed at too many times & the realisation that 6yrs of cloistered learning does not equate to functionality in the real world :Doh: . 95% of them couldn't design a building to suit a budget if their life depended on it, & I've seen time & time again sickening budget blowouts on projects :Cry: . They are more concerned with seeing a vision manifest than operating within a clients financial means. By all means there is a very real need for architects, if it was up to builders everyone would be living in square boxs, but the Australian Institute of Architects needs to take a good long look at the calibre of "smoke & mirrors proffessionals" it is producing & try to improve the crop. They're like a group of eccentrics holed up behind a defensive wall, telling each other how great they are while the rest of the world hurles abuse from the gates. :2thumbsup:

----------


## bitingmidge

.. and may I now tell you about the carpenter know-it alls?   
The ones that suppose themselves to be tradesmen, yet can't read drawings? 
I've seen them time and time again  contribute to sickening budget blow-outs by not even being able to adequately estimate work just for their own trade, let alone an entire building. 
The ones that don't know to prime the faces of joints in exposed timbers before fastening them, or how to fix hardwood weatherboards without having them split as they dry. 
The ones that hurl abuse at others from the gates while telling each other how great they are. 
You see, by pointing the finger at just one profession or trade, one can speak many truths, one can get a rise even, but the truth is that all have similar failings, not just the architectural profession. 
If you think the Institute of Architects needs to have a look at itself (and I don't disagree by the way) then by golly, you should look seriously at the Builder's Labourers Federation. 
Cheers, 
P  :Tongue:

----------


## pawnhead

Its not often that a builder works do and charge. Theyre far more likely to be on a fixed contract, and any blowouts in their budget come out of their own pockets. Architects on the other hand, usually take no responsibility for the cost of a job. The more it costs, the bigger their 20% becomes. They usually whack on a decent contingency sum so theyve got something to play around with if they change their minds about something, and theyd use it all up, and often try to convince the client to spend a bit more.
The only way the client is going to be ripped off by a builder on contract, is if he goes broke and does a runner after the architect has authorized progress payments above and beyond the work already performed. 
Of course everyone on these forums is the best at what they specialize in. We can all pat each other on the backs for that. Weve got the best architect, and Im the best chippie/builder, and thats why everyone else that we deal with seems so inferior. Egos not a detrimental quality if youre trying to sell yourself. Id rather employ someone who was confident than someone whos unsure, but a lot of architects seem to be doing the jobs for themselves, and for their resumes, instead of for the client. To be fair, from my perspective, its less than 15% of architects that are prima donnas who look down their nose at builders and tradesmen as a lesser species, but they give the rest a bad name and perpetuate the stereotype.
Most are very good at what they do, theyre not that fussy, and they leave the builder to sort out the details, and Id agree that 15% are exceptional, and very proficient at providing accurate details of every nut and bolt to the builder, according to the original plans, on time, and on budget. 
Of course admittedly there are dodgy builders that give the rest a bad name as well, so we can keep throwing stones over the fence at each other to get a rise.  
And I still reckon there's a lot of drafties/building designers out there who'd do just as good a job for a lot less dollars.  :Tongue:

----------


## bitingmidge

> The more it costs, the bigger their* 20%* becomes.

  A few facts in the debate would be helpful though! 
The old "standard method" for calculating complete Architectural Services was 6% of the building contract.    
Over the past two decades with different delivery methods evolving, the complete service is a rare beast indeed, but when it happens (on commercial projects at least) its rarely more than about 4% and in most cases more like 2.5.  Of course smaller jobs are handled differently, usually charged by the hour or some other method. 
This is really a rule of thumb as most consultants are engaged on a fixed lump sum basis these days. 
At the above rates, it is quite difficult for a firm to make a profit, resulting in architecture being one of the lowest paid professions in the country, and we all know what we get when we pay peanuts! 
When I was practicing, I was always slightly peeved that we could command less money than the real estate agent selling the job! 
Cheers, 
P

----------


## silentC

> For the likes of Silent  and so many others, it's all the same once the lights are out anyway, and even with the lights on a few beers will fix it, so there's no need to waste good beer money on quality design.

  That's not strictly correct though, is it? I know plenty of people who feel that way, but most of us at least have some idea of what works and what doesn't. The MacDonalds mansion crowd have bad taste, but it's not the same as not having any taste at all. I'm sure they like the look of their houses - they picked them out of a catalogue after all. 
We've all lived in houses long enough to know what we like. Take our place - the last house we owned had a poky little kitchen on the other side of the house from the lounge. We obviously spend most of our evenings either in the kitchen or in the lounge, so it's nice to have them next to each other so that SWMBO can call out the cricket score while I'm cooking the chicken parmigiana. In my opinion, these things are far more important than what the house looks like.  
I saw a house on TV the other day. They'd designed it with a funnel shaped roof that diverted all the water off the roof into a tear drop-shaped rain water tank in the middle of the living room. It looked like a large white epiglottis dangling from the  ceiling. What possible design principle would support that? Hope it never leaks. I agree having a water tank is an important aspect of modern housing design, but that's just silly. 
I know what I like, I admit my tastes are a bit on the conservative side, I certainly take a practical view of things - the thing has to perform it's intended function and this should not be compromised by aesthetics. It is important to me that the house looks good, in a practical, neat, old-fashioned rural property sort of way. A bird cage would not have fit in here at all. Judging by the majority of the houses here, most people feel the same. We come from all walks of life but independently we have all hit on designs that are harmonious. A couple of short kilometres to the south east though, we see the results of the ex-Melbourne baby boomer and architect worlds colliding!

----------


## Bleedin Thumb

Pharmaboy, I think you are mistaking good design with practical design or perhaps well resolved design. 
I agree entirely with Derek's statement that good design can/is art............. 
A good design is a design that is pleasing aesthetically, economically considered, has a sense of place in its surroundings *and* is well resolved and practical.    
Well it probably is a whole lot more also but you get my point.

----------


## Bleedin Thumb

The whole argument about cost blowouts being caused by the Architect is a bit naive. You may find that cost blowouts can be caused by many thinks such as latent conditions, contractor miscalculations, necessary design changes or even unrealistic client budgets to start with. 
Its always easy to blame the architect however sometimes as BM has pointed out the blame does lay elsewhere.

----------


## pharmaboy2

good : having desirable or positive qualities especially those suitable for a thing specified 
so "good design" is dependant both on the outcome and what was specified at the beginning.  So good design meets its requirements - those requirements are what determines whether its good or not.   
thus in terms of the output, good design can mean just about anything.  the more descriptors we use the more we are hemmed in.  The Guerkin is now highly regarded as  a building, yet couldnt hgave  a sense of its surroundings, nor a myriad of important archtecture - many of the great buildings in fact have created the environment ie someone has to be first. 
Mr Midge - I have an almost full collection of "houses", a mag endorsed by the RAIA.  What is most interesting is comparing their first couple of installments with the last half dozen years (I think its about a 15 yr span or thereabouts).  Early on, the designs were not very modern, and quite conservative - nothing as avant garde as was produced in the 1920's Bauhaus for example, let alone Harry Seidlers 1950's work.  Now - no rules, no conservatism, lots of experimentalism.  It seems perhaps we are coming of age, finally. 
Good architects, CAN do economical work, but its rare.  Untill its common then architecture has to live with the view of the general populace about expense and practicality. 
I like to see new buildings of new design that challenge pre conceptions of what houses look like - particularly when they become more and more attractive over time (eye of the beholder).  The extension of the body of work in housing as art (for want of  a better term), is good for us - God help us if we yearn for the vistas of Coronation Street! 
The creation of that housing in the first place though requires pioneers - either extreme confidence or money, preferably both.  The word "value" as understood by joe average is encapsulated in whats it built of  and how big is it - smaller better designed is a harder sell, hence a hundred project homes are built for every architect designed one - though even there there has been some  movement. 
Art also requires originality - a copy, is a copy of an artwork not THE art.

----------


## bitingmidge

> good : [SIZE=-1]Mr Midge - I have an almost full collection of "houses", a mag endorsed by the RAIA.  What is most interesting is comparing their first couple of installments with the last half dozen years (I think its about a 15 yr span or thereabouts).  Early on, the designs were not very modern, and quite conservative - nothing as avant garde as was produced in the 1920's Bauhaus for example, let alone Harry Seidlers 1950's work.  Now - no rules, no conservatism, lots of experimentalism.  It seems perhaps we are coming of age, finally.

  I will now revert to my true cynical self, and advise that "houses" is/was a publication of the RAIA certainly, but the contributors pay to be there, and as such it is no arbiter of what is good, rather it is a bundle of ads, where architects attempt to seduce prospective clients with work that they determine will be attractive to a particular segment of the community! 
NEVER mistake the winner of an architectural award for a particularly competent piece of architecture!  That would be like thinking an oscar winning movie was a supreme example of that craft.  Both may be, but they are more likely to be popularist pieces designed to attract the vote their peers.   

> Good architects, CAN do economical work, but its rare.  Untill its common then architecture has to live with the view of the general populace about expense and practicality.

  I think that is where you are wrong.  I have been in a position of engaging consultants for the past fifteen years, and you have to believe that the development industry does not survive if it does not get economical work. 
The view of the general populace in the scheme of things doesn't matter all that much to the practice of architecture, it's the development industry from which it derives the vast majority of its income. 
Note I am talking the VAST MAJORITY, not all here.    
I am also surprised at how often architects take the flack for things well out of their control, in a debate such as this, people are happy to differenciate between architect and designer, yet how many times have you heard someone talk about the "mistakes of their architect" when talking about some backyard draftie? 
Hmmm, I'm not really on thread here am I?    
I'll try again later! 
P  :Biggrin:  :Biggrin:  :Biggrin:

----------


## pharmaboy2

> I think that is where you are wrong.  I have been in a position of engaging consultants for the past fifteen years, and you have to believe that the development industry does not survive if it does not get economical work.

  Maybe we are both right? 
Economies of scale operate in the development industry, so you would expect for a $50,000 archictecture fee to go a lot longer in a $2m build than in a $300,000 build with $30k or 15k fee. 
Further single buildings are competing against a myriod of project builders with plans already to go and easy to build, wheras a 20 unit development is always going to be drawn as a once only (whether a designer, draughtsman, or chartered architect) - so the competing cost bases are different. 
point taken on houses, but it does illustrate then that the public has also come a long way if those are the houses that are acceptable for publication.  Besides I only buy it for the piccies (!) and to steal their ideas for my own castle.

----------


## bitingmidge

> most of us at least have some idea of what works and what doesn't.

  I don't believe that to be the case at all!!  Firstly the MOST important thing about a house design is designing for climate, and this is where the fundamental lack of knowledge comes to the fore. 
You see it everywhere, but particularly in the land ads "North to street"  "faces views" etc. 
In my (vast  :Biggrin: ) experience, most of us don't even consider this.    

> The MacDonalds mansion crowd have bad taste, but it's not the same as not having any taste at all. I'm sure they like the look of their houses - they picked them out of a catalogue after all.

  So do a count.   Aren't they "most" of us?   Before McMansions there were cream venerials, before that the triple-fronters and before that the California Bungalow. 
They were all catalogue houses where the impression from the street was the only "design" feature. 
"Most" of us live happily in those environments, while claiming to be the arbiters of good taste.   

> We've all lived in houses long enough to know what we like.

   Is what we "like" good design necessarily?   

> Take our place - the last house we owned had a poky little kitchen on the other side of the house from the lounge.

  I'll bet the "architect" copped flak for that! :Biggrin:   

> We obviously spend most of our evenings either in the kitchen or in the lounge, so it's nice to have them next to each other so that SWMBO can call out the cricket score while I'm cooking the chicken parmigiana. In my opinion, these things are far more important than what the house looks like.

   Form follows function my friend!  :Rolleyes:   
Bugger, I have to do some work... I'll continue later! 
P  :Biggrin:  :Biggrin:  :Biggrin:

----------


## journeyman Mick

I was going to add to this thread but I think it's all been said here and here  :Biggrin:  
Mick

----------


## pawnhead

> I was going to add to this thread but I think it's all been said here and here  
> Mick

  Thanks for the links. 
A couple of interesting threads there, with a lot of words of wisdom.  :2thumbsup:  
I remember that Fed Square doco. It was a hoot, and wasn't that architect a piece of work eh? 
Nigel would've been proud of him.  :Biggrin:

----------


## Carpenter

> .. and may I now tell you about the carpenter know-it alls? 
> The ones that suppose themselves to be tradesmen, yet can't read drawings?
> I've seen them time and time again contribute to sickening budget blow-outs by not even being able to adequately estimate work just for their own trade, let alone an entire building. 
> The ones that don't know to prime the faces of joints in exposed timbers before fastening them, or how to fix hardwood weatherboards without having them split as they dry.

  There's no shortage of them thats for sure, but its pretty easy to just give them the flick & get a more capable carpenter. Quality control should be the responsibility of everyone, but the buck stops with the principle contractor. If he's not looking after this then I agree all hell can break loose. My point is Architects are generally self regulating & in a much greater position of power, & their typical failings are given a fertile soil to grow in when a trusting client naively surrenders too much control. Most clients I've encountered purposly engage the services of an Architect because they don't feel confident about the building process & want someone to take the helm, & from my observations it rarely goes well.    

> The ones that hurl abuse at others from the gates while telling each other how great they are.

  What? Life's a bit more realistic down on the tools Midge, if you cant walk the talk, it wont take long for someone to pull you into line or send you packing. Maybe the RAIA could organise some site visits to learn how to do this? The hardest lessons are usually the ones that bear the most fruit.   

> You see, by pointing the finger at just one profession or trade, one can speak many truths, one can get a rise even, but the truth is that all have similar failings, not just the architectural profession.

  Couldn't agree more but this thread is about Architects, so I'm just giving my 2 bobs worth based one 25yrs of sporadic encounters with Architects.   

> If you think the Institute of Architects needs to have a look at itself (and I don't disagree by the way) then by golly, you should look seriously at the Builder's Labourers Federation.

  I don't have anything to do with commercial work, but didn't the BLF disappear decades ago? Anyhow, what do you expect from an organisation run by labourers? :Biggrin:

----------


## journeyman Mick

> ...............Anyhow, what do you expect from an organisation run by labourers?

  Well, not too much labouring, that's for sure. :Biggrin:  
Mick

----------


## silentC

> I don't believe that to be the case at all!! Firstly the MOST important thing about a house design is designing for climate, and this is where the fundamental lack of knowledge comes to the fore.

  Well, I was really talking about the internal layout, but that's why I went to a building designer, because he did know how to design for climate. So he took my little boxes and rearranged them in a salubrious way.   

> So do a count.   Aren't they "most" of us?

  In certain suburbs of Sydney, certainly. Down my may, there are a few examples of the class at Tura Beach, but most new houses around here look either a bit like mine, or like a gilded birdcage for the preening of silver feathers therein.  :Wink:    

> Is what we "like" good design necessarily?

  Obviously not, judging by some of things I have seen. I'm just saying that people do pay attention to the layout of the houses they live in and perhaps factor it in if they ever get a chance to design their own. I certainly do. 
So what is good design? By what factors do you assess a design to say that it is good?

----------


## journeyman Mick

Just an interesting observation: 
Ludwig Mies van der Rohe who is one of the key figures of modern architecture; who headed the Bauhaus for 3 years; ran architecture at the Illinois Institute of Technology for about 30 years; was famous for his "less is more" and "God is in the details" quotes; was responsible for innumerable huge public buildings as well as some iconic chairs and designed the first ever apartment buildings with curtain glass walling; never lived in any of his own, pared down, modern buildings. He chose instead, to live in an old fashioned cluttered house with small windows. 
Now I quite like the look of some of his buildings, but I don't think I'd want to live in any of them either. My own humble dwelling was built to a very tight budget by a builder for his elderly mother. More through luck than design its orientation is pretty good, but I would've designed it differently myself. And yeah, I would design my own house and draw it up myself, but I have seen some absolute shocker owner designed places and wouldn't generally recommend it. 
More food for thought. :Wink:   
Mick

----------


## pharmaboy2

thats funny mick - my 2 favourite objects are the Barcelona pavilion and the white barcelona chair!  Although still on Bauhaus, I have a Le Corbusier chaise lounge, and it was definately designed for someone 5'10 or thereabouts - they need a largeer size these days! 
A new house 2 doors down from us, looks like an attempt at an international modern box, but looks like it was owner designed, then paired down by a builder to price.  Brand new 30 odd square home, and Id suggest it'll be D-9 ed by about 2030 - poor render, cheap small windows, no entry relief - black reliefs around windows and top,  cheapest construction methods possible. 
Maybe that the thing - poor modern attempts have a really high hate factor - you can stuff up the quality of a build on conservative lines and get away with it - the modern design however gives you no such latitude

----------


## pawnhead

My sisters house that I was talking about earlier, is a very old sandstone semi that only covered half of her double width block. It's a very simple 'two eyes (windows) and a nose (front door) design. The new extension was added to the side, and it's a square box that overhangs the lower section by about a metre and a half. The lower section has wide vertical folding steel and glass bifold doors. The architect wanted to put an expensive shop awning on the front that would have looked hideous.  
It actually doesn't look all that bad, and it has grown on me. I'll have to take some pictures of the finished product.

----------


## brynk

haha all this talk about architects, engineers, builders & tradesmen buck-passing, art, & design made me think the biggest job i've ever worked on to date and incidently, my first job in the commercial construction industry... 
(by the way, to me, good design is art is the elegant *and* economical application of a sound solution to a problem - this can only be achieved by a human or humans doing what they do best - manipulating an otherwise indifferent arrangement of molecules into some entropy-reversing form, initially for their own ongoing survival in the ether and the subsequent amusement &/ pleasure of other sentient beings; the latter which may not necessarily hail from their own species. if your soon-to-be-mum-cum-architect can do all this for a hundred bucks an hour then i say go for it - see if she'll give you a cash discount  :Biggrin: ) 
i hunted back through the formwork drawings, engineer's reinforcement & concrete drawings, and finally traced it back to an early architectural floor plan. from memory, the structural steelworker bore the cost of installing a bracket that the engineer okay'd without additional cost that the builder then suggested (as part of our day-to-day management of the job) to the architect, who then turned around and billed time for the 'management' of all of this to the client. 
what does this prove? *1)* _most_body never really reads the plans until it comes time to make them a reality - sure okay, they look at them; *and 2) who was at fault?* it was the bloody draftsman of course, for copying and pasting the floor plan from one level to the next  :Doh:

----------


## Carpenter

> From memory, the structural steelworker bore the cost of installing a bracket that the engineer okay'd without additional cost that the builder then suggested (as part of our day-to-day management of the job) to the architect, who then turned around and billed time for the 'management' of all of this to the client. 
> what does this prove? *1)* _most_body never really reads the plans until it comes time to make them a reality - sure okay, they look at them; *and 2) who was at fault?* it was the bloody draftsman of course, for copying and pasting the floor plan from one level to the next

  The levels of complexity that can arise in a project are very often beyond any realistic expectation for anyone to foresee, particularly with an Architect designed project. This is not a criticism of Architects, just a recognition that its the nature of anything outside the square to throw up design & construction challenges. The scenario you describe above Brynk begs the question; Who solved the problem, & therefore who should be the one charging for it? I reckon the Steelworker should have been paid, because he would have provided 50% of the solution, the other 50% would have been from the Builder who would also be paid as this is a part of his day to day managment. The Architect, by nature of his trade as a designer is not predisposed to have much input to the problem at hand. He's a designer, not a structural problem solver. This is the realm of the builder & the relevant trade, but as you can see the Architect (who would have been standing about nodding agreement & contributing bucket loads of bugger all) never misses an opportunity to slug the client. Parasitic by nature, otherwise they'd starve. :2thumbsup:

----------

