Architect Question

**derekcohen** · 30th October 2007, 11:02 PM

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** · 31st October 2007, 12:04 AM

Originally Posted by Sir Stinkalot

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.

Originally Posted by Sir Stinkalot

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.

Originally Posted by pawnhead

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.

Originally Posted by 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.

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

Originally Posted by Sir Stinkalot

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.

**pawnhead** · 31st October 2007, 01:13 AM

Originally Posted by derekcohen

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.

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.

**silentC** · 31st October 2007, 08:47 AM

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

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** · 31st October 2007, 09:16 AM

I have no hesitation slandering architects

**Ian Wells** · 31st October 2007, 10:00 AM

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** · 31st October 2007, 11:38 AM

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** · 31st October 2007, 11:51 AM

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** · 31st October 2007, 12:42 PM

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** · 31st October 2007, 05:32 PM

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** · 31st October 2007, 06:49 PM

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** · 1st November 2007, 08:37 AM

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

**Bleedin Thumb** · 1st November 2007, 02:28 PM

Originally Posted by silentC

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!

(I'm not saying you live in a shytty box either!

)

**silentC** · 1st November 2007, 02:37 PM

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** · 1st November 2007, 03:42 PM

Originally Posted by silentC

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.

Thread: Architect Question

Thread Tools

Search Thread

Similar Threads

Spray-Gun question down in "Painting, Plastering, etc."

Two-part Question

Tags for this Thread

Bookmarks

Bookmarks

Posting Permissions