I'm not arguing with you, Jump -- hey, I'm here to learn, but I haven't found houses to be the 'breeze' you've experienced. On one hand i'm having a little fun with numbers and the 40 hours per sheet idea. On the other hand...
When I first heard a partner at a previous firm throw that out there, I thought, WHAT? Not hardly. No way. 40 hours to do one sheet??? How??? But... what he was alluding to in an odd little way of guestimating was a sans rosy-colored glasses shot at how much TOTAL time REALLY goes into one of the sheets that gets rolled up into the set.
Hmm. Client / consultant / site meetings and visits, phone calls, emails, revisions, design time(!), etc, etc, etc, ...and then finally of course the actual drafting time (plus of course the inevitable RFI / addendum/ change order little drafting changes). You all know the drill.
Still don't like the 40? ...that's fine, there is no number that will be correct for everyone. But it starts to point to why houses ARE such a challenge... problem number one is that most of us WANT to do them, but realistically can't often get enough fee to cover the time and effort. And agreeing on fee is only step one, which per the above posts doesn't seem all that simple!
if you average in all that stuff it could come out to something like that, and rules of thumb are good to have. we are a bit bad because we don't work that way and just do what it takes to make the project work. this is not good from business perspective, but for now is how we have decided to go.
here in tokyo a house takes about 6 months to design and 6 months to build. fees would be about 50-100k for a modest sized house. 2.4 k would not even pay my rent.
compared to doing a hospital a house is FUN! the regulations are clear, simple and straightforward and instead of a committee for a client (and with public projects the committees have factions which is tedious at best) it is just a couple. lovely.
mind you, japan's zoning system is really clear, the laws are all performance based and the only thing they really really are extra careful of are the structural calculations. the rest is dealt with pretty simply with a set of 15 drawings or so that include calculations for solar access, FAR, room ventilation rates, building heights, material non-flammability proofs, that sort of thing. It is pretty clear-cut. There are no local approval boards type of thing, and neighbours have ZERO say in what will be built as long as size or height do not go over certain levels, and even then they don't really have any say...maybe it is different in USA?
Snook, they're estimating their project costs to be about $200k. He's doing some of the work himself, and getting some of the materials for free. They're not retirees yet, but close to it.
My role, as we've discussed it would end with construction documents. He is procuring his own construction oversight. So I am producing more of just a builder's set?
Let's say, just as an exercise to calculate a typical fee for a residential project, you proceeded with a typical % of construction cost fee. For residential, it's typical to charge no lower than 18%, but since this project seems to be a favor, let's assume as low as even 10% (nearly half the typical).
$200,000 x 10% = $20,000 total
If you got paid by phase, the typical structure would be similar to this, though there is some flexibility in this structure:
Survey & Schematic: 20%
Design Development: 20%
CD's & Bid: 40%
Construction Admin & Punchlist: 20%
Since you'd be ending at CD's, you'd have 80% of the total fee up to CD's.
$20,000 x 80% = $16,000 total fee
And this is at the extremely low percentage of a 10% fee.
You need to determine what you consider fair, considering your time, effort, and self-worth. Also, be careful with how you present the CD's to the client. You may want to add a disclaimer on each drawing noting that the documents are for design intent only and that delivery of the CD's indemnifies you from any and all claims arising from errors, omissions, and the interpretation and execution of the CD's. etc etc...Just a suggestion.
The $2,500 number is similar to what a magazine or newspaper charges for their "house plans." They clearly don't want to pay for an Architect's services. Point them in the direction of a general contracter.
Here is another way to look at it The house is 1.400 sf and the cost is $200,000. So it cost $142.86 a suare foot to build. Your fee is $1.78 a square foot.
My experience is $142.86 a square foot doesn't buy much in this economy nor has it for the past eight years. So your not going to
get to pull all the rabbitts out of the hat. Go into the thing with this in mind. Keep it Simple.
Plans like those are certainly readily available -- and may be with just a few tweaks fully satisfying for your client. As I said, the more mainstream/conventional their wishes, the less they need an architect, and the more likely that you will do a lot of work for a negative profit.
Absolutely agree with shuellmi and kurt - if they find a house plan they like, you can tweak it for them at a reasonable hourly rate.
But keep this in mind too: if they are "doing some of the work themselves and getting materials for free" they probably are not interested in hiring a general contractor. This means if you do plans and something is f*ed up by one of the subcontractors (who will blame the problem on "bad drawings"), they won't have anyone to turn to for redress but YOU. You put yourself in a very dangerous situation if they need to find someone to blame besides themselves and don't have a GC.
I'm astounded by how many homeowners think they can act as their own GC. There are some people who have building experience who can, certainly, but realistically building is far more complex than most people get.
coming from someone that does alot of cheap freelance residential projects...
$2500 is just not enough fee to get through design and CDs for even a small house.
A. You will break even at best by cutting corners on your time.
B. Not feel like working on it because you will feel cheated.
C. Checks will be slow and they wont be happy about paying your bills because the are really looking for a freind freebee.
D. The first snag in permitting or construction will send these people into a tailspin...for which you will spend hours of emails and phone calls helping them (and then you will feel guilty about charging them extra because you or they will somehow justify that it was partly your fault)
I recommend one of the following:
1. Walk
2. Agree to do some design on an hourly basis and tell them to hire an el cheapo drafts bitch off craigslist to do the permit set.
3. Have them buy a stock plan (as mentioned above) and modify it on an hourly basis to fit local code and their design whims.
4. Walk
Design fees per drawing?
but yeah even at 15% our fee is not really enough once consultants are paid. thats why my mentor advises me to refrain from doing houses.
luckily my partner is a developer so there are other revenue streams. well, there were anyway...
I'm not arguing with you, Jump -- hey, I'm here to learn, but I haven't found houses to be the 'breeze' you've experienced. On one hand i'm having a little fun with numbers and the 40 hours per sheet idea. On the other hand...
When I first heard a partner at a previous firm throw that out there, I thought, WHAT? Not hardly. No way. 40 hours to do one sheet??? How??? But... what he was alluding to in an odd little way of guestimating was a sans rosy-colored glasses shot at how much TOTAL time REALLY goes into one of the sheets that gets rolled up into the set.
Hmm. Client / consultant / site meetings and visits, phone calls, emails, revisions, design time(!), etc, etc, etc, ...and then finally of course the actual drafting time (plus of course the inevitable RFI / addendum/ change order little drafting changes). You all know the drill.
Still don't like the 40? ...that's fine, there is no number that will be correct for everyone. But it starts to point to why houses ARE such a challenge... problem number one is that most of us WANT to do them, but realistically can't often get enough fee to cover the time and effort. And agreeing on fee is only step one, which per the above posts doesn't seem all that simple!
:-)
i didn't take it as an argument ;-)
if you average in all that stuff it could come out to something like that, and rules of thumb are good to have. we are a bit bad because we don't work that way and just do what it takes to make the project work. this is not good from business perspective, but for now is how we have decided to go.
here in tokyo a house takes about 6 months to design and 6 months to build. fees would be about 50-100k for a modest sized house. 2.4 k would not even pay my rent.
compared to doing a hospital a house is FUN! the regulations are clear, simple and straightforward and instead of a committee for a client (and with public projects the committees have factions which is tedious at best) it is just a couple. lovely.
mind you, japan's zoning system is really clear, the laws are all performance based and the only thing they really really are extra careful of are the structural calculations. the rest is dealt with pretty simply with a set of 15 drawings or so that include calculations for solar access, FAR, room ventilation rates, building heights, material non-flammability proofs, that sort of thing. It is pretty clear-cut. There are no local approval boards type of thing, and neighbours have ZERO say in what will be built as long as size or height do not go over certain levels, and even then they don't really have any say...maybe it is different in USA?
Snook, they're estimating their project costs to be about $200k. He's doing some of the work himself, and getting some of the materials for free. They're not retirees yet, but close to it.
My role, as we've discussed it would end with construction documents. He is procuring his own construction oversight. So I am producing more of just a builder's set?
This is making me tired.
DN: Run Buddy Run....They are on the cheap!
Dapper,
Let's say, just as an exercise to calculate a typical fee for a residential project, you proceeded with a typical % of construction cost fee. For residential, it's typical to charge no lower than 18%, but since this project seems to be a favor, let's assume as low as even 10% (nearly half the typical).
$200,000 x 10% = $20,000 total
If you got paid by phase, the typical structure would be similar to this, though there is some flexibility in this structure:
Survey & Schematic: 20%
Design Development: 20%
CD's & Bid: 40%
Construction Admin & Punchlist: 20%
Since you'd be ending at CD's, you'd have 80% of the total fee up to CD's.
$20,000 x 80% = $16,000 total fee
And this is at the extremely low percentage of a 10% fee.
You need to determine what you consider fair, considering your time, effort, and self-worth. Also, be careful with how you present the CD's to the client. You may want to add a disclaimer on each drawing noting that the documents are for design intent only and that delivery of the CD's indemnifies you from any and all claims arising from errors, omissions, and the interpretation and execution of the CD's. etc etc...Just a suggestion.
Good luck.
The $2,500 number is similar to what a magazine or newspaper charges for their "house plans." They clearly don't want to pay for an Architect's services. Point them in the direction of a general contracter.
I'm guessing this is what they want....
dapper
Here is another way to look at it The house is 1.400 sf and the cost is $200,000. So it cost $142.86 a suare foot to build. Your fee is $1.78 a square foot.
My experience is $142.86 a square foot doesn't buy much in this economy nor has it for the past eight years. So your not going to
get to pull all the rabbitts out of the hat. Go into the thing with this in mind. Keep it Simple.
Shuellmi reiterates my earlier point.
Plans like those are certainly readily available -- and may be with just a few tweaks fully satisfying for your client. As I said, the more mainstream/conventional their wishes, the less they need an architect, and the more likely that you will do a lot of work for a negative profit.
Absolutely agree with shuellmi and kurt - if they find a house plan they like, you can tweak it for them at a reasonable hourly rate.
But keep this in mind too: if they are "doing some of the work themselves and getting materials for free" they probably are not interested in hiring a general contractor. This means if you do plans and something is f*ed up by one of the subcontractors (who will blame the problem on "bad drawings"), they won't have anyone to turn to for redress but YOU. You put yourself in a very dangerous situation if they need to find someone to blame besides themselves and don't have a GC.
I'm astounded by how many homeowners think they can act as their own GC. There are some people who have building experience who can, certainly, but realistically building is far more complex than most people get.
Not saying I would do the "tweaking" for them, however. I would not.
coming from someone that does alot of cheap freelance residential projects...
$2500 is just not enough fee to get through design and CDs for even a small house.
A. You will break even at best by cutting corners on your time.
B. Not feel like working on it because you will feel cheated.
C. Checks will be slow and they wont be happy about paying your bills because the are really looking for a freind freebee.
D. The first snag in permitting or construction will send these people into a tailspin...for which you will spend hours of emails and phone calls helping them (and then you will feel guilty about charging them extra because you or they will somehow justify that it was partly your fault)
I recommend one of the following:
1. Walk
2. Agree to do some design on an hourly basis and tell them to hire an el cheapo drafts bitch off craigslist to do the permit set.
3. Have them buy a stock plan (as mentioned above) and modify it on an hourly basis to fit local code and their design whims.
4. Walk
Sincerely yours,
The Cad Croupier
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.