Thread: Architect Question

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

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.

"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!

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

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

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.

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

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 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

Originally Posted by derekcohen

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. 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. 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.

.. 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

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.

Originally Posted by pawnhead

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

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!

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.

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.

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.