Why do owners need Architectural services?

analyze buildings built without architects, next to those designed by architects.

compare the picture on the back of 12 million cereal boxes to those in a museum.

our landscapes are plagued with cereal boxes.

We run into a lot of this with the 'design/build' firms.....We emphasize the fact that the architect represents and protect the owner from the contractor, and the other administrative services, i.e site plan approval, zoning etc......nut it is really getting nasty out there.

Our last bid job.....thankfully we don't do many, we spent a great deal of time just defending ourselves from the constant slander of the contractor. (huge contractor - tiny archtiectural office) I guess they thought that they could throw there weight around and bury us, but each time we came out on top, its just been hundred of hours of going back through the drawings and specs. Finally the owner has realized the true value of our services

Other factors:

An architect is also a trained problem-solver who is best suited to adapt spatial and material solutions to any given context. His/her experience and insight is often essential when building in difficult urban conditions.

An architect is an experienced space-planner: an essential skill in accommodating any complex program, especially in public buildings, where security and efficiency are important factors in building design.

He/she is also trained to work with aesthetic and compositional issues. Other professionals in the construction industry do not share this (mistakenly) under-rated responsibility.

Aren't we really asking 'why do clients hire architectural firms to design their buildings'?

I'm a student, so I could be (probably am) wrong, but big clients often have their own in house architects, often liscensed ones, right? They DO hire architects because they know they need them (to help figure out who to hire to design a building, to handle the design of an office in their building or on their campus, etc.). But why do they hire FIRMS?

Probably mostly starving TECH grads....

Are we to assume that your question is, 'Why do large clients hire outside architectural firms to do their design, rather than using in-house design staff?'

If so, there are many reasons.

1. A local firm might have connections, relationships and work history with local planning officials, contractors, and other political movers. 2. 'Outsourcing' transfers liability for errors and ommissions to a third party, reducing risk. 3. Using an outside source might offer specialized expertise, style or technique that isn't available in-house. 4. If capital improvements funding fluctuates wildly, it's better to hire on an as-needed basis rather than having to manage staffing layoffs and rehiring (which is bad for a company's reputation, by the way.) 5. There is more flexibility in scheduling and cost control. 6. Sometimes an small outside firm is less costly and faster, because one can sidestep the corporate bureaucracy and internal politics. Employee morale can also be higher in a small intimate office. For example, General Electric bought an established environmental engineering firm that had previously done much of their work (Thinking of all the money they were going to save. Within a year all the technical staff left, and the division folded. It seems the guys that went into environmental work because they liked to spend their days wading through swamps or drilling holes in the dirt didn't see themself as a part of the corporate structure of a fortune 500 company, even though the pay was significantly higher. 7. A small local firm might be more familiar with local building methods.

Hmmm. I'll have to ask her. She didn't LOOK starving last time we met...

Architects (at least here in Québec) are independently liable as professionals. It is not to their advantage to be stamping construction drawings when they are on a corporation's payroll, which can amount to a conflict of interest!

Usually, a «house» architect in corporations and public services has the mandate to act as a link between the corporation and independent architectural firms who offer their services on contract. His/her responsibilities include the preparation of documents that summarize the corporation's needs and objectives, as well as the elaboration of a preliminary program. An in-house architect also acts as a competent voice for negotiating with the architect, engineer and contractor during the construction phase. He/she is not, however, required to be licensed for this

As an overanxious and eager student still jumping through hellacious hoops for that license, I'd think that the budget restriction would cause architects to be even more crafty than if they were given the glitsy often dreamt-about unlimited budget for a public museum. Then again, I still have no real world working knowledge of what really goes on in the offices.

(But I can cut and glue chipboard and basswood with exacto knives like it's second nature)

The almighty Frank Lloyd Wright even did commissions that were on relatively modest budgets. If the sleep deprivation of architecture school hasn't erased half my memory, the Rosenbaum House is one of 'em.

~ArchitEck

I was one of those at one time.

Hello,

On the subject of Landscape design/build firms, I thought I'd pipe in on the side of the design/build businesses out there and all you architects can hear from our side of the story. We have had many, many clients come through our doors with plans drawn up by licensed landscape architects which either:

1. do not meet the needs/wants/desires of the customer.

2. do not work in 3-D reality because the plans are drawn from a false miniaturized helicopter perspective which does not take into account the visual and textural reality of working in three-dimensional real life .

3. make compromises in design due to engineering issues that the architect was unable to solve because of a lack of a construction background.

4. are just more of the same tired, old designs that were popular in nice neighborhoods several decades ago but lack any real creativity or freshness.

Now, most of the above could also be said about many of the design/build firms out there due to basic lack of communication skills/creativity/engineering skill/etc., so this is not a slam only of architects. We do not charge our customers a seperate line item for design services, but we make it clear to them that our prices (which are all listed for them so there are no suprises) do reflect the way we work with them every step of the way, listening to them closely (typical consultation sessions can last four hours or more) and then coming up with unique, personalized designs that reflect what they are truly looking for. Often times, customers have very little idea what they want, and it takes an investment of time and energy to bring it out of them. Other times, they have ideas about what they want but hold them for what we call the wrong reasons (such as bad experiences with past contractors or the simple fact that they don't know the full universe of what is available to them).

We *can* do plans, and it does make us money, hovever we tell our customers that we can still do a wonderful design, partially by using their actual property as the canvas, and save the $1500-$2500 (or more) that we charge for CAD-based plans and use it in the budget for nicer, larger trees, more plants, or better hardscape materials.

Just a perspective from the other side of this debate! No flames intended as I am sure you are all competent professionals who work to serve your customers to the best of your abilities.

Best Regards,

Bryan B. Shisler CEO & President Allied Property Services