Choice words

Residential Architect, Sept-Oct, 2002

your editorial in the issue of April residential architect ("Clients' Choice," April 2002, page 13) is so true. I lose so many clients to builder-drafting services because the client does not want to pay for the years of experience and professionalism [of an architect]. Not only do I lose residential projects, but I lose small commercial projects that are allowed to be designed by a draftsman and structural engineer in my state of Florida. I just sent a proposal out to a client on Monday and wished I had been able to make a copy of your editorial and include it with the proposal.

I think most lay people are unaware of the true reasons for hiring an architect, as your article points out. These are the people who need to read your article. Thank you for writing it.

Ken Shapiro, RA

KHS Architects

Deltona, Fla.

i am a builder. I build homes and do renovations and additions to existing homes. Your column ("Clients' Choice") is very disappointing. The attitude that only the architect is the good guy and the center of the building process is past its time. How about the concept of a collaborative effort of owner, architect, and contractor?

There is no question that the architect brings the creative skills to the project. But how about cost controls? Who understands this better than the builder? How about choice of materials? Just because a rep came to your office does not mean the product is any good. Who says the architect understands site problems as well as a builder? The architect works on a two-dimensional surface. How often have we poor builders found a plan that is not buildable and said, "If only they had asked me about this before they drew it."

The client is best served by a design and build process. The old architect idea that competitive bidding is best is so wrong. Supervision does not get quality. Good contractors with skilled mechanics do. The low price at the bid is not the answer; the right price to achieve the goals of the client is. Architects are so hung up about interference in the design process and afraid someone may have a suggestion that improves the design by changing the plan. What the client needs to pay for is the design, not the huge set of details and specifications that increase the cost of the design service.

The building of a home should not be adversarial. It is a collaborative effort of people to achieve the desired result in a business environment. Why is it that in commercial and institutional construction so much of the work is being done on a design and build basis but only in residential construction are architects hung up about the old way to do business? No wonder so many of your friends complain they do not get enough money for their efforts.

Richard Dickson

by e-mail

responding to your editorial ("Clients' Choice"), I also believe the client rarely realizes the effort and thought that goes into the design of a functional yet aesthetically pleasing 'environment.' As an intern getting ready to take the exam in about a year, I have found this out about clients. Most are very knowledgeable and savvy about business and know how to cut a deal.

However, they do not realize that the decision to cut corners in this large investment might cost them the functionality of the space they will likely live in for a good portion of their lives. Put it to your friend like this: If you don't put forth the money upfront, then you will put it forth down the line and the result still will not be as pleasing as if it had been done right in the beginning.

Joe Richmond

Archiplan International, Ltd.

Schaumburg, Ill.

i work for MHI home builders. I like to read residential architect, especially your editor's column. I just read "Clients' Choice" and know what you are talking about. Doing several projects of my own for my own clients (outside MHI) I often get involved in those questions: "Why do we need an architect? We can get our builder to do it without an architect." (At MHI, we are very flexible. We do a lot of customizing as a tract home builder, but it's still a tract home.)

One of my most-used arguments is that an architect can save them a lot of square footage. A builder surely can build them a house, but with an architect they usually can get the same usage with less square footage because it's better planned. If you can do the same with less, you save that much in construction cost.

With 300 to 400 square feet saved at $100 to $150 a square foot, you have saved the architectural fee--and you've also saved the future expense of maintaining that extra square footage.

Bjorn O. Sefeldt, AIA

Vice President, Architecture

MHI

Houston

your editorials from the March and April issues of residential architect were two of the best that I have read in a professional publication. Keep up the good work for those of us who still do houses.

Dick Jenkins

Jenkins Architecture

Raleigh, N.C.

What does an individual's choice in art tell about them? If they choose mass-produced art already framed, they may be happy with a mass-produced plan for a house. If items they display are chosen because they speak to the soul, then an architect should do the same with their living space.