While strolling along, you will find more than just bars and restaurants on this main street located in St. Charles. To my delight, I ran into this little place called

Framations – Custom Framing and Art Gallery

It’s a fantastic place that can not only meet your framing needs, but also allows you to peruse through local artists’ talent. Artists from all over the metro St. Louis area have their works on display here. But there’s more good news! These special works of art are not only for viewing, they are also for purchasing! It’s a great place to go to to find and support your local artists. So come on in, have a look around, and don’t forget about special event nights. More info can be found on their website: http://www.framations.com/

Framations – Custom Framing and Art Gallery
218 N Main Street
Saint Charles, MO
United States
63301

Hours of Operation:
Tuesday-Saturday: 10:00 am – 6:00 pm
Sunday: 12:00 pm – 5:00 pm
Monday: CLOSED

Don’t forget to check out their facebook page here: https://www.facebook.com/pages/Framations-Art-Gallery/126409054042100

Remodeling and knocking down walls to open up a space always has its challenges.  The Llewellyn’s ran into dangling electrical wire within the walls and the need to work around a load-bearing wall.  A summer of paper plates, grilling and eating out, allowed this family to continue living at home while the project was underway. A little over a month past the goal, the project was complete and the result – functional, warm and inviting!

The Junior League hosts “A Gathering Place” on April 21st.  For more information about the Tour and to purchase tickets, please click here!

The Robinsons built a new house to replace an old, forgotten building.  The kitchen is a focal point in the design of their new home. The natural materials include forged iron, copper, marble, a reclaimed cobblestone floor, reclaimed doors and a washed oak ceiling.

All of this add up to a warm, welcoming, highly usable, charming new kitchen.

The Junior League hosts “A Gathering Place” on April 21st.  For more information about the Tour and to purchase tickets, please click here!

Cliff Heggs, having a background in art, drew up initial floor plans for their kitchen. Once hiring Karr Bick Kitchen & Bath to help them with the design of their kitchen, they were lucky enough to find a designer, Anne Boedges, that took their plans, tweaked them, and added her own finishing touches to the space.

The result of this collaboration is lovely. New Zealand laminate wood flooring, reclaimed wood supports, knotty alder and painted maple cabinets, two differing suede granite countertops, and a stand-out hood design are just a few of the many beautifully designed choices to notice when touring this kitchen.

The Junior League hosts “A Gathering Place” on April 21st.  For more information about the Tour and to purchase tickets, please click here!

]]> http://www.designspeakstl.com/2012/04/13/junior-league-kitchen-tours-sneak-peek-2/feed/ 0 http://www.designspeakstl.com/2012/04/12/junior-league-kitchen-tours-sneak-peek-1/?utm_source=rss&utm_medium=rss&utm_campaign=junior-league-kitchen-tours-sneak-peek-1 http://www.designspeakstl.com/2012/04/12/junior-league-kitchen-tours-sneak-peek-1/#comments Thu, 12 Apr 2012 16:18:18 +0000 jennifer http://www.designspeakstl.com/?p=2556 Hello, my name is Jennifer Steward and I don’t write blogs… Though I had the wonderful opportunity to meet with Pam Kennedy, owner of 1235 Brownell, and I became super inspired to write this one. I have to tell you, driving through the adorable suburbs of Glendale, walking up to Pam’s house, I had every intention of walking into a traditional, classic kitchen. However, as soon as I walked in- BOOM! Color everywhere, outside-the-box design, open & inviting all hit me at once. I had an ‘AAaahhhh’ moment- never judge a book by its cover.

In speaking with Pam, I discovered that her contemporary taste started at the young age of 8 when her parents took her to a contemporary subdivision to look at display homes. ‘I knew as soon as I walked into those homes that contemporary was my style. All my life I lived in traditional décor that just simply wasn’t me.’

It took Pam over a year of research, and making sure the last kiddo was out of college before pulling the trigger to make it all come to life. ‘The backsplash is my favorite part! I walked into so many tile shops before finally seeing what I wanted!’

This house is a must-see. Be happy that Junior League is making this opportunity come to life- perhaps you’ll be inspired too!

The Junior League hosts “A Gathering Place” on April 21st.  For more information about the Tour and to purchase tickets, please click here!

The problem; how to create a cost effective “green” home (or any other building) in the St. Louis area, and this includes renovating an existing building as well. This is ground that has been tread aplenty in recent years, and yet remains ambiguous to many home owners and professionals alike for some reason. I hope to simplify and clarify what seems to be an unnecessarily complicated and confusing topic, saving time and effort while hopefully helping to avoid predicable disappointments. As usual, there are caveats (i.e. “it depends”) that can complicate things again, but I think the overall strategy for accomplishing a cost effective “green” home is really pretty simple and straightforward, as it should be. Then again, I have a fairly practical view of the topic, not that I don’t love my trees. But if you are in the Show Me state, seems to make sense to me, to…well, show that it makes sense.

The first thing we need to do is clarify what it means to be “green”. This is an unclear and emotionally charged term, often meaning different things to different people. All the nuanced meanings are related conceptually, but are critically different when discussed and applied in reality.

Many professionals prefer “sustainable”; meeting immediate needs without jeopardizing a future ability to do so. I personal love this term, but it is a VERY high bar to truly accomplish, maybe more of an ideal than a reality. To truly be sustainable, a residence would not only need to be completely independent of any services (domestic water, sewer, non-renewable energy), it would need to give back in order to recoup losses used to construct the building.

Those more concerned with environment than return on investment (ROI) might prefer “ecological”; environmentally friendly in a “living building” sort of way. Look into the Living Building Challenge for more info on this, but prepare yourself for a college PHD-level exercise in research and calculations. This is just out of the realm of possibility for most people and businesses, but cheers to those that attempt it. We love you for you zeal and shall sing your praises to the heavens.

Those less concerned with the environment but are more focused on a quantifiable ROI prefer “high-performance”; basically meaning energy efficient. This is a great term, used more by engineers, builders, and product representatives that sell energy efficient systems. But because of the practical and simplistic nature of it, it is probably also the most befitting my approach. My only regret is its limitation in that it excludes environmental concerns beyond those directly related to energy consumption. To me, that misses the bigger picture of what it means to be “green”, and so I find it wanting.

I prefer to just say “smart”. It’s a better way of designing and building, with numerous benefits over conventional methods, both economic and environmental, and anybody can take this as far as they want to with more or less zeal. Who doesn’t want to build smart after all?! Every situation and client is unique with different wants and needs, opportunities and restrictions. Done right, it’s actually cheaper than conventional construction methods initially and performs better over the long haul to boot, regardless of location. And feel free to throw in as many of the environmentally beneficial products you feel are appropriate, and get a little warm and fuzzy along with the cost-balancing stuff.

In order to determine which variant of “green” is best for you, answer a simple question; is your priority economic or environmental? Most want a balance of the two of course, but only one can and always does prevail. I usually hear something like “we want to be as environmentally responsible as we can afford to be”, which to date has always translated to an economic priority. It is the very rare committed few that pursue “green” driven by environmental altruism, although God bless them and I hope to work with one some day.

Now, I’m begging you to please, please, please be honest with yourself. Your answer is the foundation of an entire design and construction process. Some call it “concept” or your “level of commitment”. Regardless, if it is not addressed truthfully, expect disappointment and frustration, and in all likelihood wasted time and money for all involved.

While I discuss both aspects in this series, there’s definitely an economic priority to my input as that seems to be the usual driving force behind any “green” project I’ve been involved with. Frankly it’s just less messy overall, more easily explained and understood, and filled with less ambiguity. Don’t feel guilty for not being primarily environmentally motivated, as we live in a real world with real limitations. Designing smart is still environmentally conscious, it just acknowledges and embraces the cost-benefit equation.

PART TWO (COMING SOON); THE PROGRAM

Prepare yourself by reading my blog on Designing Small is Designing Smart.

If you’ve ever went into a retailer’s and felt a little bit overwhelmed by all of the merchandise there, this place certainly gives the same feeling – but – in my book, that’s a good thing.

Looking up

With things for outside of your home, inside your home, and anywhere in between,
you’ll have more than a thing or two to fill up your arms with goodies.
You can choose from a small handful of every day items, or an even
bigger handful of those fun “unusual” items.

Fantastic linear floor lamp

Don’t forget – there’s always a great clearance sale going on on the upper level of the store!
There’s more than one level you ask? Why yes – there’s the first level, a higher platform (still on same level),
a second level, and a lower platform (still on second level). Their store layout is just as interesting as the items they sell!

I think I shall let the pictures speak for themselves. Enjoy!
Hopefully, you’ve found an exciting new place to feast your eyes on as well. : )

See ya next time!

____________________________________________

super fun idea - get creative in what you fill the test tubes with

I love this outdoor wind sculpture - Pretty enough for inside, too!

Located in historic Kirkwood, it’s not too far from other exciting venues.
Take a day to explore and have fun! I’m sure you’ll find even more than I did (if that’s possible).  ; )

Bug Store
(314) 966-2287
113 W Argonne Dr
Kirkwood, MO 63122

MASCHEK design and fabrication
www.maschekdf.com

ah, the good ol' days

I’ve been a bit verbose recently, opining at length in blog format. So, this time I’m opting to post a question, or maybe a short series of questions.

It’s the consensus of the industry (design and construction and everybody around it), that Architecture as a profession is undergoing a change, a shift, an evolution into something else. I’ve heard it said several times that architects won’t be around in 10-15 years! How could that be?! COULD that be?!

So, here are the questions…

1) Is there a change afoot? If “yes”, continue, otherwise you are done.
2) If so What’s changing? Maybe it’s a number of things.
3) What’s causing the change? Software? Reduced services? Inadequate Compensation?
4) Is this change for the better or worse?
5) If it’s for the better, how can we capitalize on it?
6) If it’s for the worse, what can we do to stop it, if anything?

I have my theories, but they’re just theories…

Newer is better!

Derek Maschek
MASCHEK design and fabrication
www.maschekdf.com

THE HAND, THE MIND, and THE MONEY

Derek Maschek
MASCHEK design and fabrication
www.maschekdf.com

Before you read on, know that “I intend to misbehave”. I’m going to attempt to stir it up a little in the hopes of getting a productive but long overdue conversation going, and frankly this is just the first part!

Here it goes; I’d like to offer up an apology on behalf of architects (I, we, us) for the dismal state of the built environment. We failed you, John and Mary Public. We got on our artistic high-horses and lost sight of the bigger picture, our role in it, and our team members too. We created a monster that plagues us all to this day, architects maybe more than anybody, to the point that there is question as to whether architects will even exist in another ten years (note; future blog)!

Nowadays, we architects are a whiney lot. “We don’t get paid enough.” “We aren’t appreciated.” “Why don’t our clients understand the importance of design?” “Why do so many buildings just suck!?” “It takes time to do quality work!” “If they just would have listened to me…” These are all valid complaints I suppose, and I have certainly done my share (maybe this diatribe even counts), but I started giving these mostly rhetorical questions some serious thought as to their origins and answers. My conclusion is that, in part, we are to blame for our situation. This isn’t to say that we aren’t victims of circumstance and changing times either, but generally speaking we were complicit in the crime. What was the crime, you ask?

Arrogance (intentional) & Ignorance (unintentional?).

necessary "improvements"

Somewhere about a hundred years ago, Architecture and Design started a transformation, born of The Industrial Revolution but realizing full potential over decades in a new age of Industry, Information, Growth and Opportunity. These are all great things in and of themselves, except for one common underlying characteristic; Arrogance. Specifically, a belief that new is inherently good and correspondingly old is inherently bad, and that real progress is measured by the speed and extent of the distance one can create between the two. With the new mindset also came its unfortunate ugly brother Ignorance. In this case, it’s a simple lack of understanding of why things were the way they were, and maybe even a healthy dose of “and who cares anyway”. It was nothing new to the American mindset (Manifest Destiny), but it got legs…or actually wheels, and gears, and fuel, and…

The Hand
Let’s start with construction. At its essence it is functional, almost literally the nuts and bolts of a project. As time progressed through the ages, builders became craftsmen, and those craftsmen started to put more thought and effort into their work resulting in aesthetics beyond just performance. Builders became designers and designers were born of builders. We understood each other. We were brothers!

The Mind
Before you build something, it’s a good idea to understand what you’ll build and how you’ll go about it. Lots of planning used to go into any project due to the long-term nature of the investment and the amount of effort and resources required. Designers think a problem through, at a minimum documenting construction in enough detail to assist the builder and ensure the design, but ideally giving meaning beyond function, value beyond cost, and ideally helping the project to contribute to a larger context in both place and time. This became a highly valued profession, with all sorts of cache, value, respect, etc. The Hand and John and Mary Public trusted and honored what The Mind had to offer. It was an earned position, with proof standing testament everywhere, on scales large and small. I had a teacher once say “we were gods!” with a disturbing amount of longing, acknowledging what we are now is considerably less.

The Money
But The Hand and The Mind are two parts in a process that starts first with seeing a need (or want), considering the resources available, and understanding how to pay for the undertaking, be it effort, money, or just natural resources. Development in this most basic sense has always existed. Those with money commissioned The Mind and The Hand to execute their plans, although the originator of the project relied heavily on the specialized skills of their respected partners. And up until the last hundred years or so, these big ideas required great collaboration between the Conceivers, Planners, and Builders.

The Hand, The Mind, and The Money
So we’re on the same page, I’m equating Development, Design, and Construction to a collaboration between The Hand, The Mind, and The Money, with the later starting the process and leading the charge by employing the other two to execute the project. They all have traditionally needed and respected each other as necessary players in a difficult process, and the balance of these relationships had remained essentially the same for centuries and across cultures. The Money respected its necessary employs; the Mind for vision and broad construction knowledge, and the Hand for specific construction knowledge, craftsmanship, and skill. The Mind and The Hand respected each other as essential partners in a mutual endeavor, learning from each other along the way, doing their best to fully understand each others‘ practices and anticipate needs so that they may better do their own part.

where would you rather be?

Where did it all go wrong?
As I said earlier, about a hundred years ago something very exciting and pivotal took root in the design industry, as with nearly every other aspects of life in the rapidly evolving new Modern Age; the traditions of a classic process of materials and methods were dissected and questioned. This new mindset (Modernism) challenged everything. The Mind (architects) explored the fundamentals of architecture as object, or collections of objects, paring away what was judged to be “unnecessary” in hopes of finding the essence of building, as a project, as an object, as an artistic pursuit of the highest order. Historical “styles” and construction practices were almost rejected in total, as either irrelevant anchors to the past or just aesthetically outdated representations of craftsmen’s skills, with no home in the modern era or the future beyond that. The future was industry, it was the machine, and it should be embraced in every aspect of life. Being thought leaders, The Mind jumped up to lead the redefinition. While The Money and The Hand initially resisted changes to conventions and traditions, once the financial benefits started to become evident that quiet resistance changed drastically. As they say, be careful what you wish for.

Another ongoing phenomena taking hold of the world; information and its accessibility. More people understood better than ever the mathematics (costs and benefits) associated with property development, on any scale. Real Estate became an investment strategy on par with banking or stock market trading. Plus, it steadily became an endeavor anybody could undertake. The relationship between the initial investment and the long-term returns on that investment became formally understood figures on a spreadsheet. The new concept of challenging everything (and everyone) was proving full of opportunity, finding few real opponents but many proponents. There were no rules, and therefore no experts, including anybody to judge the social value of projects being undertaken on unprecedented scales. The Hand and The Mind were unwittingly and gradually being downgraded from partner to employee, tools in an ever-expanding financial game.

From Paul Hohlmann's VanishingSTL blog. Note the building's neighbors as well.

The pace of life began accelerating unlike ever witnessed in the history of the human race. Lifestyles changed from agricultural/rural to industrial/urban, as society demanded production and the promises of the new fossil-fueled society were great and limitless. We collectively shed the shackles of centuries, and embraced our new modern lifestyles as self-proclaimed evidence of progress and providence, both inevitable and righteous. But all this industry and rapid growth had spoiled and congested the urban areas making them unpleasant at best and nearly unlivable at worst. A new modern paradigm for living was born, fueled by the availability of apparently endless acres and accelerated by fears of invasion; Suburbs. The explosion of roads and the availability of land made virtually everywhere available for development, and offered unfettered exploration of new approaches to living, working, and playing. The Mind originally championed this idea, ecstatic to explore Modernism with its new forms and relationships between the objects called affectionately “machines for living”. The Hand adapted, was happy with all the growth, and again became experts in the new materials and methods of construction. The Money enjoyed greatly the improved balance sheet, growing ever more profitable. The Public benefited from reduced costs, trusting The Mind and The Hand to maintain traditional quality, and valued The Money as the new leaders in the prosperous Modern age.

Which applied flavor is better? Is it enough to be new(er)? Was it ever good anyway?

As a mindset, Modernism was ripe for the picking as the “style” of choice by The Money, always seeking to minimize the investment and maximize the return. The Mind was happy to support the effort as they rode the wave of the avante garde, artists remaking a new and better society in their own minds. The Hand went adapted to the new ways that made for improved quality, increased speed, and reduced cost, again becoming experts. And frankly, The Public didn’t really understand what was being given up for this new shiny approach, but it was obviously better because it was new and it certainly wasn’t old, and the trustworthy Mind was at the helm after all. If an architect was involved, it had to be good or better than the alternative, right? It always had been before.

So, here it is, the degree-revoking statement; Modernism has helped destroy, or at least seriously injure, the built environment and the profession of architecture.

It’s not because Modern is an ugly “style” or is an invalid approach to addressing the architectural problems of the modern age. Rather it is because of how easily the idea itself was co-opted and how thoroughly we allowed it to water down every other traditional style as well. The Mind got lazy and arrogant, rejecting old for new. The Money took advantage, seeking higher profits. And The Hand adapted to it all. What started as an exploration to the question of the architecturally necessary and relevant, became the unintended answer to how little could be invested to achieve a goal that happens to involve a building. The Public got duped, betrayed in the deal, although I think the realization of what’s been lost is just dawning on us all.

In a progressively isolated intellectual exercise, The Mind failed to understand and explain the merits of both Modernism as well as the historic styles it rejected and professed to improve upon. The Modernist style was so driven by functions of materials and construction systems that the subtle relationship between the functional and the poetic was lost on most. The Mind betrayed a trust earned over centuries, eventually satisfying ourselves with superficially applied “Modernism” on an investment shell.

pale shadows of memories lost

The Hand, out of necessity, became an expert in the new efficiency-driven paradigm, forever the necessary means to physical completion.

The Money grew to see The Mind and The Hand as merely a necessary part of an investment process designed to see short-term gains with no responsibility for the larger societal implications.
Consequently, The Hand and The Money capitalized on this ambiguity and partnered directly with one another (Design-Build), utilizing The Mind more as a necessary means to an end rather than a valued partner.

We (architects, aka The Mind), in part did this to ourselves.
• Too quickly did we abandon soul-imbued craftsmanship for sterile simplicity and efficiency, hailing the modern virtues of minimalism and the machine while also denouncing the ornament of craft and tradition.
• Too complicitly did we allow and validate an important and timely exploration to be bastardized.
• Too ignorantly did we fail to understand the full implications of our questions and actions.
• Too neglectfully did we fail to educate ourselves and John and Mary Public on what was being gained AND what was being lost.

Know that this has been a grossly simplified statement of opinion, intended to spark a valuable conversation about past, present and future. I understand that there are many forces at play here and that bad buildings and purely functional buildings have always been around, typically far outnumbering their higher quality relatives. I also understand that the wealthy and powerful have and continue to produce some great Modern Architecture over the last century. I simply argue that Modernist ideologies converged with other forces of our time to result in a proliferation of soulless buildings and spaces, going as far as even destroying great buildings in order to glorify ourselves. And I argue that we were complicit in proliferating the mediocrity, helping to impose upon our built environment a social burden that we are now saddled with correcting, while at the same time lacking the respect necessary to do so.
The good news is that in the last ten to twenty years, I have seen us begin to remake ourselves. Our role and our tools are changing, maybe back to a familiar version or maybe into something totally new. The conversation has begun, but this time let’s consider with respect and appreciation what come before and build upon it. Let us again earn the trust of our partners The Hand, The Money, and in particular The Public.

This has come up a lot recently, and frankly, comes up all the time. However, it’s the topic we (architects) least like to talk about but most NEED to get comfortable with. Architecture is a professional service, and it’s a business. What Architects (and Interior Designers, Landscape Architects, Planners, etc.) charge for is their time, with values for that time being directly related to resources, experience, skill, and talent. In school, many are never taught the money side of architecture and even when it is, there is no experiential reference so “in one ear and out the other”. It’s when our first potential client comes along and asks, “Hey, how much to design my house?” that we sit back and start to panic in a fog of ignorance. The answer we give; “well, it depends”. Coincidentally, this is exactly right, but without more information it doesn’t seem to help the conversation much.

Before I proceed, let me say that there are bad architects out there just like there are bad doctors, bad lawyers, and bad everything. And just like there are bad service providers, there are bad clients too. Unknowingly or knowingly, it is possible for either party involved to be less than ideal partners in a services arrangement. So, keep in mind that everything I say below assumes qualified, forthright, and honest partners are involved.

Another caveat; this is just about Architectural Services. There are no engineering fees or other design fees included with any numbers I give. Those can just as easy to be collectively equal to or considerably less than the architectural fees, it just depends.

Lastly, architects (I won’t speak for other design professionals) have several basic approaches to calculating fees, several approaches to charging for services, and lots of customizations they offer depending on project specifics or client needs. To be comprehensive about all this would be a college course in itself.
___

Historically, architects look at the project from three basic perspectives to determine a fee; hours of work, percentage of construction, and cost per square foot. These are estimated and referenced against each other, compared to other similar past projects, and tweaked until the three seem to jive with one another.

When we look at the project from an hour’s perspective, we literally consider every part of a project including administration, communication, and documentation. Tally it all up and multiply it by what we call a “blended” rate (an average of the billing rates of all those working on the project), and you have a fee estimate. Specific hourly rates can be used if known, such as with repeat or cut-and-dry projects. The more technically involved the project (hospital, laboratory, etc.), the higher the blended rate and thus higher the total fee. The opposite is true as well.

Looking at the fee from a percentage of cost of construction perspective is really useful for repeat projects or with very familiar project types. In commercial construction, architectural fees can range from less than 3% on large or simple projects, to over 15% for very custom residential, highly technical commercial, or projects with heavy hourly involvement. For a commercial project, I’d assume at least 6% of construction cost would go for architectural fees. For custom residential, 10% is more appropriate.

Using a cost per square foot methodology again should be used only for repeat projects or with very familiar project types. Given the variability of project requirements, it’s hard to even provide suggested guidelines, but consider $2.50/sf a starting point for common Tenant Interiors (office and retail that involves essentially interior walls and no exterior/shell work). While it can go down from there on really simple projects, this base number will go up quickly with architectural/exterior work, so only use this as a rough guideline. It behooves any architect to keep track of projects, their fees, and some of the usual parameters (such as square footage) for reference later as a check against future estimates using this methodology.
___

We’ve discussed how we estimate our fees, but it may or may not be how we charge for our services. Contracts are typically drawn up as Hourly, Fixed Fee, or Percentage of Construction. However, final contracts for all available design services are typically a blending of these approaches. How an architect handles fees for Design could easily be different from those for Specification and Documentation.

Hourly is just what is sounds like; billing for every hour spent on the project just like a lawyer would do, charged at whatever rate suits the employee involved. Rates vary from about $50/hr for administrative or inexperienced staff, up to about $250/hour for principals, specialists, or big names. From an architect’s point of view, this method is most appropriate for a time-consuming client (committee clients, indecisiveness or impulsiveness, unavailability, etc.), or where a project is undefined (site unselected, unique construction systems, nebulous program, etc.). It’s advantageous for the client to use this when the project is really clear and simple, client decisions will be quick and conclusive, and client experience suggests the architect’s total time estimates are high. Often, what is best for both client and architect, is to use Hourly for early phases (Site
Selection, Programming, Planning, Schematic Design) as well as later phases (Bidding and Negotiations, Construction Administration) such that an appropriate amount of a professional’s time gets placed where needed but time can be limited where a client wants to assume risk or provide assistance. Even if not asked for, an architect should always provide an estimate of the total hours involved in order to prepare a client for the anticipated end cost, or else expect an angry client later.

Fixed Fee services are derived using the methods I mentioned above, and are a “fixed” number to be paid for the services provided. As always, it is critical that a professional be absolutely clear about what services are being provided for said “fixed” fee. It is likewise critical that a client understand what services are and are not being provided. Talk this all through in person. It is time well spend for all parties involved. Nobody likes getting additional bills above what was agreed upon so both parties need to be clear in the contract and over the course of the project if and when Additional Services are probably going to be, will be, are being, and then have been incurred. As with a construction bid, the low-bidder may is likely saving money by limiting services rather than “doing it for less”, resulting in a client not getting what they expected or needed, but while getting what was contractually agreed to.

Percentage of Construction is a good and fair approach as there is some association between the value of the result relative to the fee incurred. Now, I have heard complaint by a client that asked “why should the design fee go up so much just because gold shingles were chosen over asphalt shingles?”. In this example specifically, the gold roofing would require a higher level of detailing because of its value, longevity, and uniqueness. But generally speaking, there is a greater liability risk should something go wrong, so costs associated with insurance adds in here too. Also of note here, as the initial fee estimate is based on projected rather than actual construction cost, there is the distinct possibility that the final fee will end up higher after all the receipts are added up. Actual construction cost could be less too, reducing the fee, although this situation is rare at best. Finally, it is imperative that the architectural contract define what the construction cost includes, and the contract between the contractor/builder and the client needs to coordinate with this definition. In this situation, the architect should have rights to reviewing the contractor/builder’s “books” in order to avoid relevant expenditures being kept “off the books”. If this method is pursued, only the most professional and thorough contracts (re; American Institute of Architects) should be utilized in order to properly protect all parties involved.
___

This is just a quick overview of the subject of fees associated with architectural design services. There are numerous phases in every project, there are a number ways to handle each phase contractually, and there are innumerable project specifics that will impact the final number. I understand that the numbers I’ve outlined here often come as a shock to people that are new to the Architect-Client relationship. Note that this is all just a beginning, a conversation-starter designed to get you (Mr. Client) prepared just enough to have an informed and productive conversation. Just remember that our fees are about our time. Necessary aspects of technology, infrastructure, overhead, and profit are all calculated into our hourly rates and are generally not negotiable. If you want to save money, it’s about saving time. However, know that saving money by reducing an architect’s scope will definitely result in at least one of three things; increased client’s (and even architect’s) risk, reduced quality, or just shifting the expense by paying somebody else to do the necessary work.

For most people, an architect will be employed only once and the investment involved is usually substantial. As a client, do your homework and look at your potential architect’s previous work and ask for some references. Know that often there is still more to the story, so talk with your prospective architect about it all; the good, bad, and ugly. Good planning (which is what architectural services are all about) is critical to a good project and considering the cost of construction relative to design services, worth every additional percentage point. There will always be those that offer up the “same” services for less, but ask yourself and your potential architect(s), “why are you less, more, or different?”. To just pick the low bidder is a recipe for disaster, one that likely will cost you considerably more in construction than you saved in design.

I liken architecture to planning for and executing a battle plan. It’s never a good idea to just charge down hill into enemy territory, nor is it a good idea to spend too much time anticipating every possible contingency. Get a good team, find the balance of wants versus needs, plan well, communicate well, and then execute. While nothing ever goes exactly as planned, in-field adjustments and additional expenses will be minimized, and the overall experience and final project will be something you are happy with and proud of, eager to go out and do it all again.