Opinions please
-
I read this on another forum i visit:
"I decided to employ an architect to look at extending my home from it's current two bedroom size to a three/four bed, two bathroom size, with a large open plan living/dining/kitchen downstairs (for our family home, not to sell for a profit)
After some research, went with Architect your Home who sent a qualified architect who is familiar with our local area/council.
Mr Architect turns up and spends 9 hours scurrying around the house and backgarden, taking measurements and photos and making extensive drawings. At the end of the day he produces some plans which myself and the wife were very impressed with. They had the "wow" factor we were looking for, we had no idea that the house could be transformed like he planned and were very excited at the prospect of turning it into our dream home.
He leaves us with the plans and we pay AyH just shy of a grand for the days consultation.
The way AyH work is a pay as you go service. i.e we could now walk away from them and look for another architect without anymore to pay.Or we could continue to use them if we are pleased with what we have so far...which we were.
So I speak with the architect and ask him to go ahead with speaking with the local council planners about the best way forward re planning permission and to go ahead with the CAD drawings (which are required for the planning)He agreed and said he would be in touch when he was ready to go.
This was 1 month ago. Yesterday he gets in touch and sends me the CAD drawings which have been amended from the original draft (that we had) to accomodate the 45 degree rule and 30 degree rule regarding neighbours windows. The plans are vastly different to what we had originally been led to believe were possible. He writes a long email explaining different strategies that we could adopt to try and get as close to the originals as possible, but this could involve a two stage development, doing the downstairs first (permitted development)then the upstairs later. The four doubles upstairs have become two doubles (which we have already) and two good size single rooms , and the downstairs has been shrunk too but not to quite the same extent. The features that had us really excited have all but disappeared, and the added value (ignoring current housing conditions) has been significantly reduced.
Why am I so hacked off about this?
Well, these CAD drawings that are completely different to the originals are supposed to be paid for. They will want something in excess of £1000 for them, but we are not happy with the outcome. I cannot believe that the architect couldn't know about these angles of degrees from the neighbours windows. Did he just turn up and draw our dream house to suck us in? At no point did he say it would be unlikely to be allowed and what we would get away with would be significantly different.So I am going to write back to him and explain how we feel regarding his amendments. I will probably write to AyH too and let them know how we feel. But where do you think I stand regarding this outstanding amount for these CAD drawings? Am I within my rights to refuse to pay?
Bloody annoying!"
I was just wondering what you all do when suff like this happens, what with you being on the other side of the fence, as it were.
Thanks in advance.
-
Not enough detail on the situation here, remus. It sounds like the architect failed to check his local requirements and behaved incompetently (which occassionaly happens in every profession)...but we are only hearing the writer's side of the story. Exactly what kind of contract did the architect have? What was the scope(a very important term in architecture) of his work? How is the fee structure set up for this? Where does this AyH organization come into the matter? (That's a very strange arrangement...is the architect working for them or the writer? To whom is his obligation?)
Local planning authorities often, for that matter, throw unexpected spanners into the works...rules change with shocking suddenness; bribes haven't been paid; neighbors avenge themselves for slights with objections; a commissioner simply has a bad morning...bang goes project!
The confluence of unrealistic expectations, cryptic regulatory processes, large sums of money, and general suspicion leads to a stressful situation in the best of circumstances, as well.
But then, you never hear about the majority of jobs and projects that went "just fine."
-
Heres the original thread: http://www.ukclimbing.com/forums/t.php?n=313624 Theres a bit more detail if you can be bothered to wade through the crap.
So far it sounds like a lack of communication between the architect and client. i.e. i reckon the problem could have been pretty easily solved by the architect saying 'i might have to make some changes, but if i find anything major i'll contact you.'
Cheer for your help lewis.
-
I read it...love the comments about surveyors and the engineers! Yeah, trust these guys with your life and savings! You would have to have argued with them to understand my amusement..."Yes, a plate girder that big will hold it up, but it leaves 4' clearance above the ramp! No, that's not code. No, we can't bring the trucks in another way."
Incidentally, I'm stereotyping...there are plenty of engineers and surveyors who are resourceful, competent, and design-sympathetic...but of course, we only really remember and tell stories about the ones who aren't, just like people only tell stories about the architects-from-hell.
-
Of course I can only speak from the knowledge gained from the jurisdictions we work in, but with the information you have given, I would tend to agree with you that you have grounds to be upset.
According to your post however you said (quote " So I speak with the architect and ask him to go ahead with speaking with the local council planners about the best way forward re planning permission and to go ahead with the CAD drawings ")
I think the architect should have first been reasonably knowledgeable about local bylaws governing your project. It may have been different with a commercial project (which can have different occupancy classifications in the same building as example), but unless there have been major community planning bylaw changes,there really is no excuse on a residential project, for him to not have this insight.
Secondly, if he didn't have this insight, discussed your project with your local planners, and determined that there would have to be major changes to the conceptual drawings he originally presented you, I think that he was obligated to discuss these with you before proceeding.
However in his defense, you did also tell him to proceed with the CAD drawings, and he did as instructed. I do though think he should have been consulting with you as he determined that his original concept, which was the basis of your approval, needed alteration.
I get the feeling you have partially financed his learning curve on local bylaw issues. -
Just to be clear, this hasnt got anything to do with me, i was just reading about it on another forum and thought 'who better to ask than the good people at SCF.'
Oh and has anyone got any objections to me linking this thread?
-
Thanks for the clarification, and I just read through the posts on the other forum. There were a lot of stereotypical generalities gleaned out of this one case. But a couple of good laughs too.
-
Our firm goes through an exercize at the beginning of a project - any size or type- called Due Diligence where we investigate the local building and zoning codes, look for any additional development criteria or design review requirements etc. It is a legitimate billable expense that saves much grief later on (such as the grief described).
We do work from Florida to Seattle and everthing in between and even though most states have adopted the International Building Code it is amazing how many interpretations and exceptions there are by the state and local code enforcement officials for the same things and especially the interpretations by the local Fire Marshals - they are godlike and can overrule all the established codes. Anyway, the pay as you go service described might be a good idea, in some respects, for people who want to see a concept or potential for some building idea but the architect is still responsible for professional level service from the beginning no matter how conceptual it is.
Advertisement