Artichect - initial consultation fee

lush_walrus

teneighty wrote: »

Search for "architectural designer" or "architectural technician" NOT "architect"

Sorry but that is very bad advice. Both of those groups are without any governing body whatsoever. Cheap in theory but if you hit a problem you will not have the benefit of employing an architect. Anyone on earth can call themselves either of those things. Only those who have been educated and belong to ARB can refer to themselves as an architect. You are paying for 7 years of education over none.

DRP

lush_walrus wrote: »

Sorry but that is very bad advice. Both of those groups are without any governing body whatsoever. Cheap in theory but if you hit a problem you will not have the benefit of employing an architect. Anyone on earth can call themselves either of those things. Only those who have been educated and belong to ARB can refer to themselves as an architect. You are paying for 7 years of education over none.

tbf it depends what you want - arch tech is fine for a fairly modest home extension, and will be a shed load cheaper.

lush_walrus wrote: »

Both of those groups are without any governing body whatsoever.

lush_walrus

DRP wrote: »

tbf it depends what you want - arch tech is fine for a fairly modest home extension, and will be a shed load cheaper.

Yep sorry to be clear the society exists for those who are chartered. The society is self governed and do not offer the same protection to clients that ARB does. In practice I am yet to meet a technician from the uk who is a member of the institute. We employ them as they are cheap draftsmen who sit underneath qualified staff on larger projects and complete guided tasks. They are closest comparable to a book keeper and accountant. There is a charter for book keepers but the reality is not many belong and not many would use a book keeper for submitting a tax return but would use them to build a ledger and log against the year.

Anyone can and will call themselves a technician or technologist they do not need to charter and gery don't where as previous only those who are qualified can call themselves architect. It is very common for students for example while in their year or practice between degree and masters to be referee to as an architrctural technician. Outside of the cover afforded during employment they have zero insurance. An architect always has PI cover.

The risk is for the client to take however I still purport that a one line statement of employ a technologist rather than an architect on the back of cheaper fees and not needing a grand designs solution is very dangerous advice. For someone very experienced in developing and fully understands the process maybe, but actually the householder is the most vulnerable.

DRP

Yes, as with anything it pays to do the research.

As I posted above, I had an architect visit first and was not convinced by his ideas, his enthusiasm, and his fees for what is a relatively simple design.

I then had a visit from an experienced tech who has run his own practice for many years and was on my council's 'list'. I was impressed by him and his ideas.

The design and build has not been without its problems, but I still say that for a home extension a good tech is sufficient.

Furts

lush_walrus wrote: »

Yep sorry to be clear the society exists for those who are chartered. The society is self governed and do not offer the same protection to clients that ARB does. In practice I am yet to meet a technician from the uk who is a member of the institute. We employ them as they are cheap draftsmen who sit underneath qualified staff on larger projects and complete guided tasks. They are closest comparable to a book keeper and accountant. There is a charter for book keepers but the reality is not many belong and not many would use a book keeper for submitting a tax return but would use them to build a ledger and log against the year.

Anyone can and will call themselves a technician or technologist they do not need to charter and gery don't where as previous only those who are qualified can call themselves architect. It is very common for students for example while in their year or practice between degree and masters to be referee to as an architrctural technician. Outside of the cover afforded during employment they have zero insurance. An architect always has PI cover.

The risk is for the client to take however I still purport that a one line statement of employ a technologist rather than an architect on the back of cheaper fees and not needing a grand designs solution is very dangerous advice. For someone very experienced in developing and fully understands the process maybe, but actually the householder is the most vulnerable.

To add a note to lush walrus...there is a local Architects practice a couple of miles down the road. Highly respected, grown enormous, established within the business and commercial community, basically it ticks all the boxes. Would I engage them to design an extension? Absolutely not! Would I engage them to design a new home to be built in the vernacular where I live? Absolutely not!

The staff are qualified and nice folks. However, ask them to do individual thinking on a small one off and they are out side their comfort zones. All are "Corporate Man and Corporate Woman" expecting to work as "Team Players". Schools, office blocks, and factories are just up their streets. Extensions and local one off houses are not!

teneighty

I think lush walrus works for the RIBA Marketing Dept.

As MX5Huggy clearly detailed in his post there are plenty of other professional institutions with well qualified members with professional indemnity insurance and strict professional standards undertaking architectural design work.

From my own experience the Architects I have worked with have very poor understanding of construction. They can draw pretty pictures but rely on the contractor to work out how to build the damn thing causing delays and cost over runs for the client. Not to mention their fees can be extortionate.

As Furts said, unless I was commissioning a large commercial project I would never recommend engaging a registered architect.

newbie2013

lush_walrus wrote: »

Yell is not the place to find an architect. The best is to go via RIBAs website where all registered architects will be listed. Have a quick look on their websites.

With regards to those advising to go for a cheaper alternative 'architectural' anything this is not the advice I would give. If you opt for an Architect (ie someone who is qualified) you are employing someone who has been educated formally for 7 years and their work is covered via the architects registration board (ARB). If anything goes wrong you have the backing of a governing body that has a process and compensation scheme. Any dispute and you have somewhere to turn for independent advice, who will take on your dispute and call the person or firm to account. Any architect has to abide by the requests of ARB and behave in an acceptable manner. Despite the advice, it is not about whether you wish to have a grand design or something run of the mill.

That is not the case with someone who is not qualified. You could set yourself up as an architectural this that the other without any education, any qualification and there is nothing to say they have any insurance to cover the work. It may be cheaper but do you want to take the risk with quite an expensive piece of work.

Anyway, onto your question. Before meeting them ask to see some examples of their work, what form of work they generally carry out and work out moving forwArd how you wish to form the fees. Most will work to a set fee up to planning for something simple and not very controversial with time changes for work outside of an agreed scope.

Here is a link to RIBAs (Royal institute of British architects) is guide for householders and how to find an architect. If you want help from them ask they are paid for by architects through membership to help the public (rather than ARB who govern architects).

https://www.architecture.com/findanarchitect/assets/documents/workingwithanarchitectforyourhome.pdf

Thanks. Great info.
a question - if they are not on the list of RIBA - could that be due to them not paying the registration fee, or just not registered?
they appear to have a lot of referrals and happy customers - I have spoken to a few and seen their work.

newbie2013

lush_walrus wrote: »

Yep sorry to be clear the society exists for those who are chartered. The society is self governed and do not offer the same protection to clients that ARB does. In practice I am yet to meet a technician from the uk who is a member of the institute. We employ them as they are cheap draftsmen who sit underneath qualified staff on larger projects and complete guided tasks. They are closest comparable to a book keeper and accountant. There is a charter for book keepers but the reality is not many belong and not many would use a book keeper for submitting a tax return but would use them to build a ledger and log against the year.

Anyone can and will call themselves a technician or technologist they do not need to charter and gery don't where as previous only those who are qualified can call themselves architect. It is very common for students for example while in their year or practice between degree and masters to be referee to as an architrctural technician. Outside of the cover afforded during employment they have zero insurance. An architect always has PI cover.

The risk is for the client to take however I still purport that a one line statement of employ a technologist rather than an architect on the back of cheaper fees and not needing a grand designs solution is very dangerous advice. For someone very experienced in developing and fully understands the process maybe, but actually the householder is the most vulnerable.

Playing devils adovcate here - what if they are not chartered but have the relevant insurance to cover their work?
I know some engineers who are not chartered but that is because they say the costs associated far outweighs what they actually do with the "title"

newbie2013

Thankyou to all for the lively debate - I did not expect there to be such differing views!

System

newbie2013 wrote: »

Thanks. Great info.
a question - if they are not on the list of RIBA - could that be due to them not paying the registration fee, or just not registered?
they appear to have a lot of referrals and happy customers - I have spoken to a few and seen their work.

Not all architects are registered with RIBA - in fact, loads of them think it's a waste of money

The ARB maintains a register of all practicing architects in the UK, if they are not named on there then they are not an "architect"

There is no protection of function, just title so effectively anyone can claim to be an architectural designer etc and carryout the works - but there is no assurance of their skills/expertise