Funny, very funny...........but so very true.
architect/technician what way forward for the industry?
- Thread starter architectforhire
- Start date
Funny, very funny...........but so very true.
Thanks for joining the discussion Woody. Its good to get a few other peoples perspective on this subject.
I think that your opening statement is a bit steep though. You are right that most 'Big Boy' architects do pass on the work to their staff, but normally only after they have resolved the design issues with the planning authority and worked out exactly what the technician should draw. Also, the reason that an architects fees may be higher lies in the extra overheads like office rental, insurances, LEGITIMATE SOFTWARE, advertising etc etc. I wonder how many one man band technicians (and architects for that matter) are using legal, paid for copies of CAD sortware etc?
Also, Technicians ARE cheap compared to Architects but mainly because they of their vastly differing skill sets and professional abilities. Architects are not born with their qualifications, and through their education period spend many years employed in the role of technician - so don't think I don't know what the role involves! I've been there and have several badges! However, an architect then has to adopt many other 'strings to his or her bow' such as legal awareness, contract administration, design sensitivities, negotiation, mediation etc etc.
Even typical extensions and alterations which affect the external appearance of a building now require more than just a cursory grasp of design requirement. And the plethora of reports which are becoming the norm also require far more than just drafting skills to author and compile.
I agree that there are bad architects who don't spend enough time thinking about how exactly a building should be constructed, but these don't last within the industry for long thankfully. There are also bad Building Surveyor out there - you only have to read the industry press! I wouldn't dare say that 8/10 is a fair estimation of the problem though!
I agree with you totally that most small clients couldn't care less whether the person drawing their new extension is fully qualified or not. They do however care when a technician puts in a set of drawings to the planners only to get a rejection due to their lack of understanding of design criteria. I should know as my last practice seemed to get a constant stream of this type of work when times were more affluent, and I always seemed to be fitting in these 'mess' jobs between the larger projects I was tasked with.
I think that your opening statement is a bit steep though. You are right that most 'Big Boy' architects do pass on the work to their staff, but normally only after they have resolved the design issues with the planning authority and worked out exactly what the technician should draw. Also, the reason that an architects fees may be higher lies in the extra overheads like office rental, insurances, LEGITIMATE SOFTWARE, advertising etc etc. I wonder how many one man band technicians (and architects for that matter) are using legal, paid for copies of CAD sortware etc?
Also, Technicians ARE cheap compared to Architects but mainly because they of their vastly differing skill sets and professional abilities. Architects are not born with their qualifications, and through their education period spend many years employed in the role of technician - so don't think I don't know what the role involves! I've been there and have several badges! However, an architect then has to adopt many other 'strings to his or her bow' such as legal awareness, contract administration, design sensitivities, negotiation, mediation etc etc.
Even typical extensions and alterations which affect the external appearance of a building now require more than just a cursory grasp of design requirement. And the plethora of reports which are becoming the norm also require far more than just drafting skills to author and compile.
I agree that there are bad architects who don't spend enough time thinking about how exactly a building should be constructed, but these don't last within the industry for long thankfully. There are also bad Building Surveyor out there - you only have to read the industry press! I wouldn't dare say that 8/10 is a fair estimation of the problem though!
I agree with you totally that most small clients couldn't care less whether the person drawing their new extension is fully qualified or not. They do however care when a technician puts in a set of drawings to the planners only to get a rejection due to their lack of understanding of design criteria. I should know as my last practice seemed to get a constant stream of this type of work when times were more affluent, and I always seemed to be fitting in these 'mess' jobs between the larger projects I was tasked with.
You need to stop using the word 'cheap' as it gives out the wrong message. Start saying 'less expensive'.
You are quite right Noseall, less expensive is more correct - but I was only repeating Woody's expression.
Woody - why am I arrogant for defending my profession? I wasn't the one broadly claiming that 8/10 architects drawings are rubbish - and in anycase given your previous statement that these 'rubbish' drawings would have been drawn by his technician anyway, why are you are advocating it is a technician who is better placed to do the drawings!! Interesting logic. Why would the technicians drawing be better if he was a one man band rather than working for a practice?
Why is it that everyone in the industry seems to claim that architects are not worth their money? Most only earn the same amount as say an electrician, or bricklayer working on a site. I can honestly say that I've seen far more examples of shoddy building work while snagging on sites than I have seen poor quality drawings when checking out the competition on the planning portals. And any extra drawn details are generally produced FOC. How many builders do extras FOC when the job gets a little harder than anticipated?
I seem to have made a number of enemies on day one here - are there no other architects on this site to make this discussion less one sided!!!!! Or are the ones that still have their jobs hard at it in the office doing overtime (drawing trees, people and cars etc!)
Woody - why am I arrogant for defending my profession? I wasn't the one broadly claiming that 8/10 architects drawings are rubbish - and in anycase given your previous statement that these 'rubbish' drawings would have been drawn by his technician anyway, why are you are advocating it is a technician who is better placed to do the drawings!! Interesting logic. Why would the technicians drawing be better if he was a one man band rather than working for a practice?
Why is it that everyone in the industry seems to claim that architects are not worth their money? Most only earn the same amount as say an electrician, or bricklayer working on a site. I can honestly say that I've seen far more examples of shoddy building work while snagging on sites than I have seen poor quality drawings when checking out the competition on the planning portals. And any extra drawn details are generally produced FOC. How many builders do extras FOC when the job gets a little harder than anticipated?
I seem to have made a number of enemies on day one here - are there no other architects on this site to make this discussion less one sided!!!!! Or are the ones that still have their jobs hard at it in the office doing overtime (drawing trees, people and cars etc!)
A talented architect who champions the cause of the lesser paid is a welcome addition to any forum.
A useless architect who is full of wind and bluster and self importance, deserves to rub shoulders with fellow job hunters.
It is up to you to contribute or shove off. Your additions to the forum will speak for themselves.
Either way i will stay reserved...........
A useless architect who is full of wind and bluster and self importance, deserves to rub shoulders with fellow job hunters.
It is up to you to contribute or shove off. Your additions to the forum will speak for themselves.
Either way i will stay reserved...........
You yourself have made this thread descend into one of bitchiness.
If you are going to debate something, then debate it - explain the points, consider the alternatives.
Whether someone posts during office time is rather irrelevant to the subject of setting up a business doing design work
As I said, you need to lose that aloof attitude so prevalent within Architect circles. If drawing a box on the rear of someone's house pays the mortgage, then draw the box. If going around criticising every other profession you come across is your bag, then you will be packing that bag fairly quickly.
edit
LOL - b1tchiness does not get through the swear filter?
Hi AFH and welcome to the forum. And what a baptism of fire, eh?!
Sorry to hear of your situation and, yes, away from the comfort of an established practice, you will be ploughing your furrough alongside plan drawers, architect's techs, building surveyors, moonlighting BCOs and builders who think they can draw as well as build and often can't manage either.
You won't often find SEs (other than unqualified office sprogs) doing this kind of work, as, tbph, it's too much effort. Horses for courses and all that.
I just have to refer to FMT. Matey, you always strike me as eminently sensible in the advice you give in here - but no PII? Are you out of your fu<king mind???! And you were a bit quick to jump down AFH's throat there, I have to say...interestingly I would aim the same at Woodster and, more unusually for being so forthright, Nosey. Is this bait an architect day or something?
Clients down at the extension level don't understand the difference between the grades of architectural scribblers - and wait until you tell one that you need a structural engineer!
Get a hooky copy of AutoCAD, £500k worth of PII and an A3 printer. The easy fees from the commercial environment aren't there, for sure, but tapping up old clients leading to a few recommendations should soon see you up and running. Draw up a simple terms of appointment form too: don't go doing verbals, otherwise someone somewhere will tuck you up like a kipper before you can shout Reeba.
Sorry to hear of your situation and, yes, away from the comfort of an established practice, you will be ploughing your furrough alongside plan drawers, architect's techs, building surveyors, moonlighting BCOs and builders who think they can draw as well as build and often can't manage either.
You won't often find SEs (other than unqualified office sprogs) doing this kind of work, as, tbph, it's too much effort. Horses for courses and all that.
I just have to refer to FMT. Matey, you always strike me as eminently sensible in the advice you give in here - but no PII? Are you out of your fu<king mind???! And you were a bit quick to jump down AFH's throat there, I have to say...interestingly I would aim the same at Woodster and, more unusually for being so forthright, Nosey. Is this bait an architect day or something?
Clients down at the extension level don't understand the difference between the grades of architectural scribblers - and wait until you tell one that you need a structural engineer!
Get a hooky copy of AutoCAD, £500k worth of PII and an A3 printer. The easy fees from the commercial environment aren't there, for sure, but tapping up old clients leading to a few recommendations should soon see you up and running. Draw up a simple terms of appointment form too: don't go doing verbals, otherwise someone somewhere will tuck you up like a kipper before you can shout Reeba.
Oh and keep paying the subs. You worked (reasonably arf arf!) hard to get the quals, don't give 'em up even if they might not be of any direct or obvious use to you at the moment. And they're tax deductible as well.
The problem with working for yourself is that the thought of going back to being a galley slave soon becomes unthinkable. I now count myself as completely and utterly, 100%, unemployable.
Well.... a fair bit of activity since yesterday afternoons fun and games!
Thanks for your words Shytalkz, I must admit that from the build up and reverence which was afforded to you by the others (unleash the hounds indeed!) I was expecting a mauling. It turns out that you are a reasonable guy with a far less jaundiced opinion of architects. I can only assume that the others who contributed to this thread have been unfortunate to work alongside some of the architects who fall into the worse than useless catagory or perhaps the breed who drive really expensive cars but can't actually afford to fill the tank up! I must say though that we're all not quite that bad at producing legible, reliable drawings - in the same way that not all builders are cowboys (although lets face it, most are!! )
I'm glad to see that someone else has at last agreed with me that PI is essential (I was getting a little worried there!). I personlly wouldn't let a builder who wasn't insured loose on my house, and likewise wouldn't want an uninsured draughtsperson producing the drawings that he or she would be following. It may keep the cost of the drawings down, but if anything goes wrong it can be devastating for all concerned. I personally think that it should be mandatory like car insurance - you don't go about your business expecting a crash, but if it happens......
Your right too Shytalkz about the clients usual reaction when they are told that they need SE input. Oh the horror! I've done a few private jobs in the past for 'mates rates' fees and this issue has really de-valued my service when I've had to obtain quotes from SE practices for their input. My 'mates rates' fee was then paltry compared to the engineers invoice, immediately giving the client the impression that lots of drawings and calculations would be forthcoming from the SE - not quite the case. But as you say, not many SE's do this kind of thing 'on the side' as it were and I guess that this is due to their sensible attitude towards PI and responsibility.
And Woody ...
Anyway, must go for now.... I have a bow tie to iron and my E-Type to polish. Arf Arf! 
Thanks for your words Shytalkz, I must admit that from the build up and reverence which was afforded to you by the others (unleash the hounds indeed!) I was expecting a mauling. It turns out that you are a reasonable guy with a far less jaundiced opinion of architects. I can only assume that the others who contributed to this thread have been unfortunate to work alongside some of the architects who fall into the worse than useless catagory or perhaps the breed who drive really expensive cars but can't actually afford to fill the tank up! I must say though that we're all not quite that bad at producing legible, reliable drawings - in the same way that not all builders are cowboys (although lets face it, most are!!
)I'm glad to see that someone else has at last agreed with me that PI is essential (I was getting a little worried there!). I personlly wouldn't let a builder who wasn't insured loose on my house, and likewise wouldn't want an uninsured draughtsperson producing the drawings that he or she would be following. It may keep the cost of the drawings down, but if anything goes wrong it can be devastating for all concerned. I personally think that it should be mandatory like car insurance - you don't go about your business expecting a crash, but if it happens......
Your right too Shytalkz about the clients usual reaction when they are told that they need SE input. Oh the horror! I've done a few private jobs in the past for 'mates rates' fees and this issue has really de-valued my service when I've had to obtain quotes from SE practices for their input. My 'mates rates' fee was then paltry compared to the engineers invoice, immediately giving the client the impression that lots of drawings and calculations would be forthcoming from the SE - not quite the case. But as you say, not many SE's do this kind of thing 'on the side' as it were and I guess that this is due to their sensible attitude towards PI and responsibility.
And Woody ...
Totally agree with you, a mans gotta do what a mans gotta do to earn a living.... but I must comment that most planners are not supportive of this kind of utilitarian outlook. They are expecting (and its a good thing I think) to see a little design flair employed even on the simplest of jobs. You only have to look around at some of the 'abortion' extensions of the 80s and 90s to see that some kind of standards need to be applied. I wouldn't throw up a box extension at the back of my own house and I would welcome the local authorities intervention if my neighbour tried to do the same! Thankfully I think that most of 'Joe Public' are now much more design savvy thanks to TV programs such as Grand Designs, Property Ladder, Builder From Hell etc and expect a higher standard of design and craftsmanship anyway. Hopefully the days of rectangular rendered boxes with flat toofs are numbered! It is possible to build to a budget AND achieve a good looking end result - its just needs a little creative thought with regard to the form and the materials employed.
Anyway, must go for now.... I have a bow tie to iron and my E-Type to polish. Arf Arf!