Poop, I don't see at all how you could do this in 3 hours max and have a workable solution drafted and returned to the client.
The only real question is what was the financial arrangement made by your "relative"?
I can't tell you how many times people have asked me to do something for them and when I tell them what to expect, they are shocked. They only see the end result in their minds, and have no idea of the time and effort involved to get that end result.
hmmm...project, have you seen the plans and elevations. I'm just saying it would take me and people I work with about 3 hrs. If longer, then there is something wrong. I'm just curious how long it would take you?
poop: you are living in a fantasy world if you think those drawings could be done in 3 hours.
First off, jk3hl says the architect met with the Owners for two hours. So now you only have one hour left to design and draw.
Oh, and even though there were existing plans and elevations, the architect has to verify that those drawings are accurate, because I can guarantee you the majority of them aren't. So there's another hour of field verification, now you have no time to draw.
Then there's checking local codes, which would be another half hour at minimum. Of course, if you've built in this municipality already you may already know the codes, and that is why it doesn't matter if you work on this project for one hour or ten. This Owner's project is built on the hours of experience the architect has already.
Then there's at least an hour on the schemes that get tossed out, because any decent architect is going to test at least a few possibilities before finalizing a scheme. If they truly don't need to, and they "shake the design out of their coat sleeve" like Frank Lloyd Wright famously said, then it's because they've dealt with so many similar projects that all those hours spent are coming into play in making quick decisions on this one. Which is why $2k is a bargain.
Are you, poop, speaking as a draftsperson? Because if you are, and someone handed you a scaled sketch and said "CAD this" then yeah, three hours is reasonable. But drawing something isn't designing it.
lb,
sorry for miscommunication, but I mean purely draw these floor plans and elevations. So yes, the drawings and nothing else. Assuming the drawings that were handed to the architect were correct, and the design was discussed in the meeting was final, sitting down and drafting this would take 3 hrs.
I thought the question was how long to draw these.
and jk,
the drawings that your relatives got, they only seem proposal drawings and nothing else. Tell them if they want a complete set for this addition to expect more bills to come.
drawing is never as simple as it sounds, otherwise all architect shouldn't have to work for more than 8 hours a day.
the thinking and the knowledge and the information behind the drawing is what takes time. many architect can have a career just writing spec. or do code reviews...these tasks are often subout because of how time comsuming they can be. all those time they spend are supposedly incorporated in the drawing. like LB mentioned the kitchen is perhaps the most complex space in the house; equipment has to fit, services have to run with minimum impact to the rest of the house so everything can function like it should.
poop, I do not know how long have you worked or have done project in the real word, but if you been to architecture school you should know that most of us spend more time figuring out what to draw than actually doing the actual drafting. i can imaging that simple plan went through maybe 2-3 versions and revisions with those versions before it was dropped of the client's door.
it can be done in 3 hrs if your were picking up red marks or tracing designs someone already done.
The drawings were given to the architect as PDF's. I know pretty much all "drawings" I get are fairly worthless representations of the idea of the project. Upon verifying I always find at least some seriously wrong assumptions made by whoever drew them. Most of the time what owners think are useful drawings end up being completely worthless to me. They don't realize this because they aren't considering how the building is constructed, they just see that the living room is off the dining room.
Even if they were completely correct you still need to draw them now. Its not like they handed over a cad drawing. Then you need to figure out the best layout. You need to figure out whats happening with the foundation at the addition, how the new flooring meets the old, what happens at the ceiling between these spaces, how that relates to the window heads, how the windows relate to the kitchen layout, how the roof framing will layout best, what parts are worth keeping, and what should be replaced, where that line is drawn and how to deal with the connections. There are so many things that need to be considered for this to work when it is built. Some things are easy to figure out but they all need to be examined to be sure the finished product looks good.
So often i see those stupid "fixes" on a contractor designed job because things weren't lined up and thought out. The fact that is seems simple in the end is generally a testament to a well thought through job at any scale.
The unfortunate circumstance with many residential clients is they just can't recognize many things the architect did well but it is easy for them to see mistakes. They just don't fully understand it past walking in and seeing that the kitchen looks nice and oh a stainless steel fridge!
interesting thread. I think a huge issue that people are not mentioning is the lack of a contract...that's a violation of the Architect's Practice Act and could clear up any of the miscommunication about the fee that was charged. Personally, I set out a clear estimate of time & fee in my proposal. The proposal is referenced in the contract with the caveat that it is an estimate based on a certain scope of work, but additional time will be spent to deal with unforeseen existing conditions and changes (constant) in scope by the client.
Having a contract is useful for both sides, so not providing one is not only poor practice, it gives an architect no basis on which to defend the fees. Just get it out there in the beginning...they'll still gripe, because there's a ridiculous inability to recognize the skills that people have been talking about in this thread. Speaking of which.... being vague about fees and practice only does the profession a disservice. There needs to be an effort to educate the public on what we actually do. I've always felt that there's a blind respect for architects because:
-most people have wanted to be one at some point
-it's a fun word to say and sounds glamorous
-movies play on the assumption that architects have it together...as does George Costanza :)
I just think we get respect for the wrong reasons and it certainly doesn't equate to clients happily writing out those checks.. you know?
i went to a local home expo about 6 months ago and signed up on a mailing list for a builder, just for grins.
this just arrived in my email 10 minutes ago....
++++++++++++
You stopped by our display at the CASS show earlier this year regarding the home you want to build. We will be having a green building class on Saturday November 21st, 2009 9-11am at NM Design Center at 4801 Alameda NE Suite F in Albuquerque. Let me know if you would like to be enrolled in that class.
In the mean time, it would be great if we could meet to create a 3D model of the house you want to build. We don't charge for creating the model and it allows us to give you a budgetary for building the home.
If you like the estimate and want to proceed, we can create a set of house plans for the project so you can get a permit. We charge $1/sf for house plans, but if you hire us to do any of the work, we give you a credit for the money you paid us to do the plans.
Oakley
I don't think people missed that part. It got brought up a few times and all anyone can really say is that's just a bad idea overall to not have a contract. All anyone can really comment on is the fee, which doesn't sound too bad, but has to be qualified by discussing the scope (which no one knows because there's no contract).
I am happy to see the discussion of varying ways of building and average fees around. I think that the AIA language is reactionary and way too encompassing. The anti-trust laws were in reaction to pricing guidelines being printed and dispersed, thus causing price fixing. Broad discussions of methods and general fees won't cause price fixing. I think people over react to this a lot, partly antagonized by the AIA.
El Jefe
That email is hilarious. It reminds me of someone I knew who did general construction, handy man type of stuff years ago. He would overcharge them then later give them something like 20 or 50 dollars back. They would be ecstatic and continue to use him and recommend him to all their friends because they felt like they were getting a great deal. Its ridiculous how people determine the value of things, ESPECIALLY when they don't know much about what they are getting.
Reflex, your characterization of the AIA language as "reactionary" is incorrect. AIA's stance is prudent. Many major professional organizations have identical language banning discussion of rates past, current, or future. Just two examples:
What's your billing per hour for residential work?
Poop, I don't see at all how you could do this in 3 hours max and have a workable solution drafted and returned to the client.
The only real question is what was the financial arrangement made by your "relative"?
I can't tell you how many times people have asked me to do something for them and when I tell them what to expect, they are shocked. They only see the end result in their minds, and have no idea of the time and effort involved to get that end result.
hmmm...project, have you seen the plans and elevations. I'm just saying it would take me and people I work with about 3 hrs. If longer, then there is something wrong. I'm just curious how long it would take you?
poop: you are living in a fantasy world if you think those drawings could be done in 3 hours.
First off, jk3hl says the architect met with the Owners for two hours. So now you only have one hour left to design and draw.
Oh, and even though there were existing plans and elevations, the architect has to verify that those drawings are accurate, because I can guarantee you the majority of them aren't. So there's another hour of field verification, now you have no time to draw.
Then there's checking local codes, which would be another half hour at minimum. Of course, if you've built in this municipality already you may already know the codes, and that is why it doesn't matter if you work on this project for one hour or ten. This Owner's project is built on the hours of experience the architect has already.
Then there's at least an hour on the schemes that get tossed out, because any decent architect is going to test at least a few possibilities before finalizing a scheme. If they truly don't need to, and they "shake the design out of their coat sleeve" like Frank Lloyd Wright famously said, then it's because they've dealt with so many similar projects that all those hours spent are coming into play in making quick decisions on this one. Which is why $2k is a bargain.
Are you, poop, speaking as a draftsperson? Because if you are, and someone handed you a scaled sketch and said "CAD this" then yeah, three hours is reasonable. But drawing something isn't designing it.
lb,
sorry for miscommunication, but I mean purely draw these floor plans and elevations. So yes, the drawings and nothing else. Assuming the drawings that were handed to the architect were correct, and the design was discussed in the meeting was final, sitting down and drafting this would take 3 hrs.
I thought the question was how long to draw these.
and jk,
the drawings that your relatives got, they only seem proposal drawings and nothing else. Tell them if they want a complete set for this addition to expect more bills to come.
drawing is never as simple as it sounds, otherwise all architect shouldn't have to work for more than 8 hours a day.
the thinking and the knowledge and the information behind the drawing is what takes time. many architect can have a career just writing spec. or do code reviews...these tasks are often subout because of how time comsuming they can be. all those time they spend are supposedly incorporated in the drawing. like LB mentioned the kitchen is perhaps the most complex space in the house; equipment has to fit, services have to run with minimum impact to the rest of the house so everything can function like it should.
poop, I do not know how long have you worked or have done project in the real word, but if you been to architecture school you should know that most of us spend more time figuring out what to draw than actually doing the actual drafting. i can imaging that simple plan went through maybe 2-3 versions and revisions with those versions before it was dropped of the client's door.
it can be done in 3 hrs if your were picking up red marks or tracing designs someone already done.
The drawings were given to the architect as PDF's. I know pretty much all "drawings" I get are fairly worthless representations of the idea of the project. Upon verifying I always find at least some seriously wrong assumptions made by whoever drew them. Most of the time what owners think are useful drawings end up being completely worthless to me. They don't realize this because they aren't considering how the building is constructed, they just see that the living room is off the dining room.
Even if they were completely correct you still need to draw them now. Its not like they handed over a cad drawing. Then you need to figure out the best layout. You need to figure out whats happening with the foundation at the addition, how the new flooring meets the old, what happens at the ceiling between these spaces, how that relates to the window heads, how the windows relate to the kitchen layout, how the roof framing will layout best, what parts are worth keeping, and what should be replaced, where that line is drawn and how to deal with the connections. There are so many things that need to be considered for this to work when it is built. Some things are easy to figure out but they all need to be examined to be sure the finished product looks good.
So often i see those stupid "fixes" on a contractor designed job because things weren't lined up and thought out. The fact that is seems simple in the end is generally a testament to a well thought through job at any scale.
The unfortunate circumstance with many residential clients is they just can't recognize many things the architect did well but it is easy for them to see mistakes. They just don't fully understand it past walking in and seeing that the kitchen looks nice and oh a stainless steel fridge!
i'm assuming the fee covers any kind of discussion and minor modifications to the initial schematic design?
interesting thread. I think a huge issue that people are not mentioning is the lack of a contract...that's a violation of the Architect's Practice Act and could clear up any of the miscommunication about the fee that was charged. Personally, I set out a clear estimate of time & fee in my proposal. The proposal is referenced in the contract with the caveat that it is an estimate based on a certain scope of work, but additional time will be spent to deal with unforeseen existing conditions and changes (constant) in scope by the client.
Having a contract is useful for both sides, so not providing one is not only poor practice, it gives an architect no basis on which to defend the fees. Just get it out there in the beginning...they'll still gripe, because there's a ridiculous inability to recognize the skills that people have been talking about in this thread. Speaking of which.... being vague about fees and practice only does the profession a disservice. There needs to be an effort to educate the public on what we actually do. I've always felt that there's a blind respect for architects because:
-most people have wanted to be one at some point
-it's a fun word to say and sounds glamorous
-movies play on the assumption that architects have it together...as does George Costanza :)
I just think we get respect for the wrong reasons and it certainly doesn't equate to clients happily writing out those checks.. you know?
i went to a local home expo about 6 months ago and signed up on a mailing list for a builder, just for grins.
this just arrived in my email 10 minutes ago....
++++++++++++
You stopped by our display at the CASS show earlier this year regarding the home you want to build. We will be having a green building class on Saturday November 21st, 2009 9-11am at NM Design Center at 4801 Alameda NE Suite F in Albuquerque. Let me know if you would like to be enrolled in that class.
In the mean time, it would be great if we could meet to create a 3D model of the house you want to build. We don't charge for creating the model and it allows us to give you a budgetary for building the home.
If you like the estimate and want to proceed, we can create a set of house plans for the project so you can get a permit. We charge $1/sf for house plans, but if you hire us to do any of the work, we give you a credit for the money you paid us to do the plans.
Oakley
I don't think people missed that part. It got brought up a few times and all anyone can really say is that's just a bad idea overall to not have a contract. All anyone can really comment on is the fee, which doesn't sound too bad, but has to be qualified by discussing the scope (which no one knows because there's no contract).
I am happy to see the discussion of varying ways of building and average fees around. I think that the AIA language is reactionary and way too encompassing. The anti-trust laws were in reaction to pricing guidelines being printed and dispersed, thus causing price fixing. Broad discussions of methods and general fees won't cause price fixing. I think people over react to this a lot, partly antagonized by the AIA.
El Jefe
That email is hilarious. It reminds me of someone I knew who did general construction, handy man type of stuff years ago. He would overcharge them then later give them something like 20 or 50 dollars back. They would be ecstatic and continue to use him and recommend him to all their friends because they felt like they were getting a great deal. Its ridiculous how people determine the value of things, ESPECIALLY when they don't know much about what they are getting.
Reflex, your characterization of the AIA language as "reactionary" is incorrect. AIA's stance is prudent. Many major professional organizations have identical language banning discussion of rates past, current, or future. Just two examples:
Association of Legal Administrators
http://www.alanyc.org/content.cfm?ID=20021
Society of Actuaries
http://www.soa.org/professional-development/event-calendar/policies-procedures/antitrust-disclaimer.aspx
I bill in cases of champagne or vodka... which ever is the most expensive.
Then I sell it to school children for triple the price!
Block this user
Are you sure you want to block this user and hide all related comments throughout the site?
Archinect
This is your first comment on Archinect. Your comment will be visible once approved.