Architectural value—the debate continues

Residential Architect, Sept-Oct, 2004 by Dale H. Schenck, Les Melburg, Richard Gribble, Bill Taylor, Dee Blackburn, Dennis McNeal, Timothy Roach, Walt Bedinger

your editorial ("Where's the Architect?" April, page 13) exposed some of the problems that we as architects face in Ruidoso, N.M., and in the surrounding area. Builders and contractors are telling clients that they do not need an architect.

Why spend that money when the contractor does not charge for plans?

The mountain terrain here does require retaining wall and pier & beam footings sanctioned by an engineer, and in most cases here, the engineer will convince the client that he can design the house as well.

So, between the engineer and the builders, they have eliminated the architect except where our seal is mandatory.

Several times I have visited with prospects and worked with them to formulate a rough sketch design. When the fee is mentioned, they say they didn't expect to pay for time spent.

It seems an architect's time is not worth anything; we just draw plans, and anyone can do that.

Dale H. Schenck, AIA

Ruidoso, N.M.

while I naturally believe wholeheartedly in your premise that a good architect will apply a combination of design skill and technical expertise to a residential project (and, consequently, value far beyond whatever the design fee was), I was surprised at the fee analysis you gave. In our region of California, you would be laughed right out of any room in which you suggested a $60,000 fee for a 2,200-square-foot home. Our firm is considered "expensive" by local standards, and we routinely design 2,200-square-foot houses for fees between $10,000 and $20,000. We compete with designers who "design" "complete" blueprints for $3,000 to $4,000 for the "same" service. It's irritating. It's frustrating, It's reality.

I love the idea of designing only four small houses per year while making about $200,000, but that, unfortunately, is not a likely scenario. Keep promoting and justifying fees in the 10 to 15 percent range, though. You're our hero.

Maybe you could write a piece titled "The Differences Between an Architect and a Drafting Service" because most people who interview us for their residential project have absolutely no idea what the differences are. They think we're just expensive drafters!

Les Melburg, senior partner

Nichols, Melburg & Rossetto Architects

Redding, Calif.

legislation and/or tax credits could give architects the voice they need.

Why do we go through all the trouble of having licensed design professionals (architects) and yet allow for a vast majority of the built environment (home construction) to be done by others? Architects have to be required! Pass a law that an architect must be acquired by the owner to, at the very least, review and critique plans ... this gives the architect a voice, and it allows the owner a way out, and could quite possibly open the eyes of the ignorant to the value of good design.

Another option: tax credits. What if we gave people credit for using licensed design professionals? Again, consider this an incentive to at least get people to talk to architects ... give the architect a voice! Architects must speak directly to the people who need them.

Richard Gribble, Associate AIA

Harrisburg, Pa.

there are many parts to a needed solution. I would offer that design/build is one useful approach.

An original piece of work as complex as a home is a whole thing that splits apart poorly into the "traditional" builder and architect distinctions. My efforts as an architect builder for these past 20 years have yielded reasonable results.

I get, basically, "two jobs for the price of one," so the marketing effort, overhead, et cetera, is reduced. Inherent efficiencies naturally accrue. The project architect in our office morphs into the role of construction manager without a loss of information or design intention. This is a very short chain of command. Changes and problems are facilitated quickly, which saves all kinds of time and money. It also allows for the occasional design enhancement without a lot of fuss.

Bottom line: Combining the design and building functions under the control of the architect, we provide our clients with good value and good design. It remains a fact, though, that if a unique building and a site is to reach its potential, it will require an original design effort that is pretty much available only if someone is willing to pay for the time it takes to create.

Bill Taylor

Bill Taylor Associates

Tucson, Ariz.

i have a fairly new firm (just under two years), and in this short period I have learned it is very hard to convince residential clients to use an architect. They see it as money wasted that could be put into materials of the house. What I try to do is educate them as best as possible. I explain everything we are trained to do, from design to dealing with the contractor. Some understand the advantage in what we do; others are only worried about the bottom line. Developers fuel this problem by telling clients they can get a drafting company to "draw up" the plans for $2 per square foot or that it is "free" if the contactor provides the drawings.

Recently a potential client asked me for a fee proposal on a new 6,000-square-foot house with a budget of $850,000. When I gave him the fee, he was quite surprised. I explained I was not a "draftsperson" and not a firm that changes plans. I told him I had hoped that they would hire me because of what I could bring to the table and that they were hiring an architect, which was very different from hiring a "house designer." I also explained the reasons for using an architect and, needless to say, I got a signed contract with that client two weeks ago! I've never been so bold about this subject before, but I decided this house was an opportunity that I could not miss, and I was not about to just sit back and be taken advantage of.