I don't like the AIA's answer, it relegates us to being thier agent, another middle-man. I'll spare you my diatribe on real estate agents.

It presupposes architects more responsible knowledgeable and trustworthy then the contractor which isn't always so, the contractor is just as responsible to the owner as we are, it's thier client as well. But more importantly I'm concerned this particualr way of structuring the contract is the catalyst for conflict between the architect and contractor.

Further it is secondary to and diminishes our role in the process and it detracts from the importance of design.

I got to run but I'll come up with an actual answer to your question.

have you seen the new aia documents regarding the client/architect/contractor relatinships? some interesting changes being made

The question is applicable to single family residential buildings and cases where there is no change in occupancy. Otherwise it is as OldFogey mentioned, they have to.

"Why SHOULDN'T people just print plans off from DoItYourselfPlanProgram and give them to a builder?" People do that. Who was it that said (in another forum here) architects only do about 2% of the single family residential? Which is unfortunate for us since I'd guess all of us would be very happy keeping being busy with the remaining 98%.

The marketing is all messed up for architecture and continues to diminish the possibilities.

The big problem is that the AIA is supported by all architects, not just the ambitious and/or talented ones. This means they have to appease the masses, not the best.

Think about music - if there were a general marketing company out there it would be promoting general crap (as most artists do stink), not the top/most talented.


Until architecture firms can truly distinguish themselves based on their strengths (like "we will win you an award", or "we will always come in on budget, on time, minimal fuss") then people will see no difference from buying a booklet at the grocery register.

It's called the RIAA and it does.

Firms are already doing this on their own with every market except the low and middle ends of single family residential. Lackluster marketing is not what keeps us out of those markets. The real problem is that the typical architecture business model is fundamentally incompatible with the way single family housing is designed, constructed, and marketed.

I don't think that lackluster marketing is being done on an individual basis with the firms, but rather the market as a whole could use better PR. Does the AIA do anything other than these websites where they attempt to answer the WHY HIRE AN ARCHITECT question?

The second sentence is also another topic I hear complaints about. I am not involved with single family residential as I work on commercial centers, so maybe you can explain a bit more? How would one go about ressurecting or birthing a new business model in the single family arena? Can that be connected back to the idea of ushering in new clients (who have decided to HIRE AN ARCHITECT). Can these be completely new, prior-overlooked clients?

The RIAA does marketing for general music like the AIA does for the general architect? If so, I haven't seen their ads promoting generic music (record companies, yes, but not the RIAA).

i mean...you wouldn't want your neighbors to think you building is too tall, would you?

hahaha that is great...a crabshacktower!

They probably would if they weren't so obsessed with suing the customers of their member companies. Maybe the AIA should start suing members of the general public.

Acording to a study done by the AIA in 2000 5% of single family homes in the US are planned with the help of an architect.

According to the NHAB buyers want designs increasingly suited to their specific desires... issues of cost cause 95% of buyers to by-pass the services of architects.

The second big problem is time. Most consumers want it now, in some cases they "need" it now, in our society we move quite freequently often due to life transitions; school, increased income affording a nicer home, trasnfers for work etc. On average less than 35% of the population lives in thier home for more than 5 years. For people under the age of 35 less than 10% live in thier home from more than 5 years. From the time that you decide you want to build a custom home, find a lot, hire an architect, design and build it... it's time for most people to move.

It's a subject that has interested me. I've been looking at these numbers and issues since my first year of school which has lead me to the Architect as Developer model. By working on small scale infill developments you're able to target specific demographic groups desiging homes customized to users specific needs while keeping design and construction costs down. It's a form of mass customization known as Not a Collaborative Customization. It requires research and talking to you target market and folloing up with customers after sales.The users becomes a co-designer more in spirit with expert guidance and direction from design professionals.

But I think this is all beside the point to the original question:

Why hire an architect?

I think it's really simple actually: Because an Architect will do a better job.

I think the pre-design study manual says something to the effect of anyone can design a home, architects can design it well. It's the same reason BMW doesn't ask Joe the Plumber (sorry to bring him back...) to design thier cars. Yes I'm sure he could design a car but it would be rudimentary and best, and more than likely an utter piece of crap.

Oi... long post.

I signed in to answer the question and basically I agree with psycho-mullet.

To elaborate: an architect has education, experience and a knowledge network that enables him to design a building that will do what you want it to better than you can yourself.

It is really very simple.

Unfortunately, we get a lot of bad press. But an architect should be able to hear your request for a great kitchen, a den, whatever and make it into a better kitchen, den whatever than you imagined. An architect will have ideas that you would never think of that are better than what the average person can come up with.

This is so obvious with some professions--like lawyers. I think that in general people in the US don't realize how much their environments affect them. Paying for an amazing space is worth it.

Maybe now that the McMansions are all going to be repossessed this will gain some credibility.

And as architects we should be working together to make sure everyone else knows this.

(cue idealistic music!)

(Another aside, I hired a garden designer this year to design my backyard. The result was astonishing. It is perfect and exactly what I wanted and nothing I could ever have come up with myself. That is what architects do for buildings. When the client lets us.)

architects should hire people that have worked in the trades...... maybe that could help.......

but then again.....trades people wont work for salary

shuellmi

Is there anyway we can see the new contracts if we're not buying them?

If Architects really "will do a better job," at single family residential then why is it that they only have a handle on 5% of the market place? Maybe your definition of "better" is subjective?

Old Fogey is right. Architecture is subsidy.

Maybe if we answer "why not hire an architect?" first, maybe we can gleam some answers from it:

1. Architects are costly, and most people can barely afford new custom construction as it is.

I.E.- $200,000 cons. cost for single family home + 10% arch commission = $220,000. When joe the contractor will build the house from stock plans, the cost is only $200k - the cost of the house.

2. There is a general assumption that architects act like "divas" on the design team and are in general inflexible on design decisions and force the cost of the project higher. However we all know that this does not apply to most architects, however, convincing the public otherwise is a challenge.

3. The general assumption that if anyone can build a building, then anyone can design a building (and many people assume they can) then an architect is irrelevant, and again will only drive up costs.

4. Lead times- architects require time to assemble construction documents. Even on small jobs this process can take months. When joe the contractor can build from a stock plan the second the ink is dry on the building permit.

5. Single family residential does not require an architect's stamp for construction in many instances. As we all know, single-family is the largest slice of the construction pie, hence we are excluded from the vast majority of construction work in our industry.

6. Almost all homes are designed to be sold. This means they are built to be as cheap as possible to turn the most profit even when they are being built by their original occupants, resale value is often on the front of their minds and fundamentally. Architects are more concerned typically with occupant safety and comfort than the lowest minimal bottom line because that is our job and its how we are trained. The safety and comfort of the occupants is priority 1 and when homes are built just to sell it fundamentally is not.

So why hire an architect?

1. Permits/Bureaucracy - for the most part, our raison d' etre.

2. Project complexity - as this increases it begins to make economic sense to hire an architect.

3. Extreme site - difficult sites require bespoke solutions and a specialist's input.

4. The luxury of a bespoke building - this is something an architect can provide and give it a certain "flair" that makes it stand out amongst its neighbors.

5. Name brand - the aristocratic elements of society are aware of the "starchitects" of the world and many enjoy having a "name" attached to their building.

now i really need to get back to work

wurdan freo

Where does Old Fogey say architecture is subsidy? I'm missing something...

Doesn't matter... I didn't say architecture is necessary. It is excessive, it is a luxury. No question about it.

First these are two different questions. Why hire an architect and why don't home buyers hire architects. And I think bring homebuilding into it has confused it a bit but I'll reiterate my point.

Saying 95% of people buy it therefore it is better is analogous to suggesting McDonalds is the best restaurant and their sales prove it. Sure it's subjective, everything is subjective. I stand by my statement that architects do a better job. Something like 95% of developer homes are designed around the traditional 1950's ideal nuclear family... a demographic which is less than 30% of the home buying public. Developers products decreasingly meet the needs of the customers. The NHBA says their own customers want custom designed homes, these products don't meet their needs, they want an architect, yet people aren't buying them.

The reason developers have 95% of the market share is, like McDonalds, they understand the customers realities better (not the product that they want, there is a BIG difference). If you re-read my post I explained in there why people don't buy what's better: Time and Money. Time and money are limiting factors that 95% of buyers can not get around, the only way to tap into that 95% is to lay your money down and pro-actively build spec. homes like developers. Developers understand this and have structured their product in a way that makes it accessible to a wider range of people. That does not mean it's a better product.

I'm not even saying we should be in that 95%, there is a need for "mere building" not everything needs to or necessarily should be designed by an architect.

But there is an opportunity for architects to tap into that 95% by building well designed "spec homes". And by working on a smaller scale infill projects (as opposed to PUD's) have a positive impact upon development patterns while simultaneously being better designed to the specific needs and desires of the customer, rather than a 1 size fits all approach.

Because were all so silky smooth link

architects may do a better job, however, most people's living requirements don't require architecture. as long as there is a wall for the big screen, a three car garage, enough closet space, a doggy door, a double height entry to impress the in-laws, a privacy fence, a bill paying station(also known as "her workspace") some brick or stone veneer on the street elevation. all is good. If you are like me and have visited say a brother or sister and they want to take you on a tour of the local new home tour and registered what impressed them, well you may know what i'm talkin' about.

WHY are we agreeing that the masses do not need or want us?! I see that as a pathway to elimination of our profession.

I believe we need to come down off our arrogant altar and really engage people's needs and wants. As psychomullet says this could be in the forms of architecture that we have yet to really tap into, for example, mass development design since we are focusing so much on residential architecture in this discussion.

I personally see the role of an architect as a manager/coordinator/communicator as more important and beneficial to the owner than design. Without us as a point of contact as representation of the owner, the project would be shuffled around, "value engineered" to hell, and delayed beyond the point of use. We seem to be fighting with contractors over this position of power. The only thing that seems to be holding THAT in check is the need for stamps and seals on drawings from both architects and engineers....

I don't really want to turn this discussion into how architects can do things better than contractors....it's kind of a sad, worn out topic.

SO WHY HIRE AN ARCHITECT?!
Adding to the list posted by Apurimac

6.)We coordinate, manage, and communicate well!

Not to misquote old fogey - "Because to get a permit, we have to."

Wurdan Freo - Architecture is subsidy.

Now to your point psycho - I don't think Good Design has to be a luxury or non critical. I think the formula that Apu identifies, constrution cost plus architects fee, will result in excess everytime. Can you change the relationship?

To continue your analogy, Is BMW generally a better product than Toyota because it costs more?

BMW Anuual revenue 2007 - 42 bil.
Toyota Annual Profit 2007 - 18 bil.

Which company would you rather own?

We work in the most fragmented industry in the world. How can you change those relationships to do it faster, cheaper and better? That 's the question that needs to be answered and if you can do that then you will have the answer to, "Why hire an architect?"

well, just make sure you do before the end of architecture

I'll take my BMW. Good design is sexy and sexy sells.




FYI - BMW profit: 4.8 bil
Toyota profit: 13.76 bil

Why hire a tailor to make your clothes (or alter them) when you can buy them off the rack for a fraction of the price?

Each person's body is different and a tailor is skilled in providing the fabric, shape, and details that suit you best. Yet, I would be willing to wager that 99% of architects do not use a tailor for their personal wardrobe.