When your client is a contractor who has been given a lump sum contract by the end user, and so they constantly shoot down and take out all inklings of design out of your project (sometimes weeks if not months of development) in order to make the construction and labor as cheap as possible with crap ass finishes so they can line their pockets with as much left over green as possible...
I'm getting REALLY tired of trying to design a respectable body work and continuously have the client #$%& it up so bad that it isn't worth a single damn photograph.
I understand your frustration, but who's project is it, anyway?
Projects that are not designed to the client's budget are the bane of our profession and continually degrade our collectively reputation.
Clients hire architects to help them achieve their goals (not ours) ... if you are not comfortable with that, then you either need to find "better" clients or find something else to do with your time. Because the clients are not going to change they way they look at their investment ... unless you give them a damn good reason to do so.
I'm completely on board with the "better" clients approach. The clients are the core problem when working a a firm who hasn't been know as any sort of a design firm, but who now wants to become one. It's like trying to steer an ocean liner with a canoe oar...
Just a little sarcasm to remind that we architects are only part of this process... and not even the most important part, overall.
Yes, beautiful design is a wonderful, wonderful thing. But if the frustration of dealing with the economic realities of working for this kind client and project is too much for you, get out. (Not "get out" as in "eff you," but as in, life's too short to hate your work. Find another line of work, or do what it takes to get in at a high-end firm with high-end clients seeking high-design.
I understand the fustration tagalong displays here. Basically, it's not the client that is cutting down the quality, but a middle man (the manager/contractor) who's only job is to streamline the process. The actual client hands that contractor the lump sum, to get all risks and responsibility. In the meanwhile, that manager/contractor knows that he can raise his profit by making the project cheaper (because the margin on this project becomes better). Thus he cuts the good quality materials, the spatial/structural peculiarities, and makes the project bland, cheaper and more profitable.
To sum it up: if the client has 100% to spare for the project, he gives the contractor all. If the contractor only spends 90%, he makes an extra 10% profit extra. If he's able to cut the price of the building even more, he'll make even more profit.
So all in all, it's not really about the client's budget, or raising the quality of the design for the client, it's about optimizing contractor's revenues. Cheaper materials can, for instance, mean more maintenance of the years. So what's cheaper for the contractor, might turn out to be more expensive for the client in the long run.
The only way to work around this, is to make sure that the client has a damn good legal document, in which the quality of the materials and the design in total is captured. This gives the contractor less wiggle room, less space to strip the project down too far...
let me get this straight. you (the architect) are contracted to the contractor ("your client"). the contractor is contracted to the owner ("end user"). if that is the case as you describe above, you have a very peculiar set of contractual relationships, one that you probably should have run from in the beginning. in a normal o-a-c contractual relationship there are checks to make sure what you've described does not happen.
Usually, a contractor can make only make a profit over and above margin when there is an agreement for a Fixed Price contract and an understanding that any savings made will be the contractors. Usually, any savings made are split between client and constractor anyway.
Very few clients would hapily give a contractor 100% of a construction price whilst knowing that the project could be delivered for cheaper - why would they? How is the price being arrived at?
Most jobs we are doing are done on an open book basis with fixed margin.
it wont be the first time that a client has supplied a budget and a brief, the architect meets it, and then the client continually amplifies the design without amplifying the budget.
Then it comes to getting the price, and woops, its 20% over. The Client panics, looks to offload design and project risk by bringing in a contractor to provide 'real-world-smarts' os some other euphemism, and the design hits the shredder. Sometimes, the client novates their consultant contracts to the contractor to finsh design etc.
This story gets repeated everywhere ad finitum.
The only hope usually with rescusing design in this case is where the building has been through planning approval where the design elements are subject to approval, and any change requires a redesign or another permit.
That's a good feeling...
When your client is a contractor who has been given a lump sum contract by the end user, and so they constantly shoot down and take out all inklings of design out of your project (sometimes weeks if not months of development) in order to make the construction and labor as cheap as possible with crap ass finishes so they can line their pockets with as much left over green as possible...
I'm getting REALLY tired of trying to design a respectable body work and continuously have the client #$%& it up so bad that it isn't worth a single damn photograph.
I understand your frustration, but who's project is it, anyway?
Projects that are not designed to the client's budget are the bane of our profession and continually degrade our collectively reputation.
Clients hire architects to help them achieve their goals (not ours) ... if you are not comfortable with that, then you either need to find "better" clients or find something else to do with your time. Because the clients are not going to change they way they look at their investment ... unless you give them a damn good reason to do so.
poop happens...
make sure you are not liable for any changes/end product then.
I'm completely on board with the "better" clients approach. The clients are the core problem when working a a firm who hasn't been know as any sort of a design firm, but who now wants to become one. It's like trying to steer an ocean liner with a canoe oar...
Yes, all those damned clients, with their "money" that "pays for our professional services." Curse them all.
And then those demon contractors, so smugly flouting our design choices as they try to "make a profit" and selfishly "stay in business."
I mean, really. How dare they?
Just a little sarcasm to remind that we architects are only part of this process... and not even the most important part, overall.
Yes, beautiful design is a wonderful, wonderful thing. But if the frustration of dealing with the economic realities of working for this kind client and project is too much for you, get out. (Not "get out" as in "eff you," but as in, life's too short to hate your work. Find another line of work, or do what it takes to get in at a high-end firm with high-end clients seeking high-design.
I understand the fustration tagalong displays here. Basically, it's not the client that is cutting down the quality, but a middle man (the manager/contractor) who's only job is to streamline the process. The actual client hands that contractor the lump sum, to get all risks and responsibility. In the meanwhile, that manager/contractor knows that he can raise his profit by making the project cheaper (because the margin on this project becomes better). Thus he cuts the good quality materials, the spatial/structural peculiarities, and makes the project bland, cheaper and more profitable.
To sum it up: if the client has 100% to spare for the project, he gives the contractor all. If the contractor only spends 90%, he makes an extra 10% profit extra. If he's able to cut the price of the building even more, he'll make even more profit.
So all in all, it's not really about the client's budget, or raising the quality of the design for the client, it's about optimizing contractor's revenues. Cheaper materials can, for instance, mean more maintenance of the years. So what's cheaper for the contractor, might turn out to be more expensive for the client in the long run.
The only way to work around this, is to make sure that the client has a damn good legal document, in which the quality of the materials and the design in total is captured. This gives the contractor less wiggle room, less space to strip the project down too far...
Well-stated, User.
Yes user, that is exactly our situation. I think it's one of the main drawbacks to a contractor led design-build team.
let me get this straight. you (the architect) are contracted to the contractor ("your client"). the contractor is contracted to the owner ("end user"). if that is the case as you describe above, you have a very peculiar set of contractual relationships, one that you probably should have run from in the beginning. in a normal o-a-c contractual relationship there are checks to make sure what you've described does not happen.
It depends.
Usually, a contractor can make only make a profit over and above margin when there is an agreement for a Fixed Price contract and an understanding that any savings made will be the contractors. Usually, any savings made are split between client and constractor anyway.
Very few clients would hapily give a contractor 100% of a construction price whilst knowing that the project could be delivered for cheaper - why would they? How is the price being arrived at?
Most jobs we are doing are done on an open book basis with fixed margin.
And,
it wont be the first time that a client has supplied a budget and a brief, the architect meets it, and then the client continually amplifies the design without amplifying the budget.
Then it comes to getting the price, and woops, its 20% over. The Client panics, looks to offload design and project risk by bringing in a contractor to provide 'real-world-smarts' os some other euphemism, and the design hits the shredder. Sometimes, the client novates their consultant contracts to the contractor to finsh design etc.
This story gets repeated everywhere ad finitum.
The only hope usually with rescusing design in this case is where the building has been through planning approval where the design elements are subject to approval, and any change requires a redesign or another permit.
Lesson for architects? The budget is king.
That should be ad infinitum.
Another lesson? Risk, or derisking is the key driver in any construction decision. Cost is secondary.
If you can understand the different kinds of risk from both the client and contractor side and talk this through, you will be golden.
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.