Do I need an architect?

[BigMonka]

Hi folks,
We've lived in our house for 12 years now and have recently been considering moving house. The process of looking round other places has reminded us of what we love about our current place but I feel like we need to do some work to get a bit more space and maybe work on how best to use the layout. The trouble is that there are options for extensions and loft conversions and we've got no design or building experience. So who do we go to where we can get some ideas and some advice? It feel weird when we don't know what we want them to design but is is that an architect we need? Or an interior designer? Or a builder? Or Kevin McCloud? (I really hope not :lol: )

We've got the same issue with the garden of thinking the whole space probably needs rethinking from scratch rather than our current approach of small improvements each year. Would an architect do exterior spaces too? Or do we need a garden designer? Or a landscape gardener? Or Charlie Dimmock?

 

[9fingers]

I think you have to give a designer some idea of what you want/need whether it be a home office, prized possession(junk) storage, open plan kitchen- living area, guest bedroom and ensuite etc
Without this you are going to end up paying the designer to interview you to extract this information before they can start to help you.
Having looked at other properties, surely you have seen things you like and would want to imitate.
Somewhere along the line you are also likely to need a structural engineer as for some reason that escapes me, architects don't seem to include this in their skills portfolio. The SE will want precise details in order to do their calcs to prove your house will not fall down!

Good luck
Bob

 

[novocaine]

it's worth paying for an hour or two of an architects time to figure it out. when we did our extension we had already decided what we wanted, the architect/draftsman came round for an hours visit to talk over it before we even took measurements (I invited him for an hour of his time and paid him for it). We walked round the house and the space that could be used and discussed it all presenting a very high level of what we thought.
he flipped it round and presented a better idea then we had which worked far better. we looked at things like how drainage would work and ventilation etc. he had suggestions that beat mine as well as knowing the planning requirements and what would and wouldn't get approved (overlooking window, blocking of light to neighbors etc.).

I'd done some fag packet drawings before he came (ex industry draftsman so they were a bit more than fag packets but they weren't more than line drawings), this helped but in later discussions we talked about how some people genuinely didn't know what they wanted and needed an external person to just talk it over with.

 

[RogerM]

You will, I am sure, have some idea of what the end result is expected to achieve or you wouldn't be having this discussion. Depending on the scale of the proposed work, an hour with either an architect or a good architectural technician would be helpful. A good start would be a personal recommendation, and then have a look at their website to see their portfolio of work. It's no good appointing someone who specialises in steel and glass boxes if what you want is a traditional oak frame, and vice versa of course. It is essential to be on the same wavelength. For our pitched roof kitchen extension we decided to use an architectural technician. The first one came up with ideas that completely ignored the brief so he was shown the door tout suite. The second listened to the brief and came up with some ideas that we had not thought of, and also over rode a couple of our preconceived ideas. He was right and I'm glad we listened.

To save money, once you've agreed a brief, just ask for some sketch solutions demonstrating the concept of his/her ideas before going for full plans.

 

[Lurker]

Interior designers arefolks with art degrees who don't fancy working in McDonald's

Can you look at houses nearby that are a similar design that have been "done up" just for ideas, then talk to a architect for advice .

 

[AJB Temple]

Just as an amusing aside, architects are not infallible. Not far from us lives an architect. Privately we call him "Norm".

He wanted to build a two story small office in his garden where currently stands a disused wooden single storey double garage. Same footprint but adding a small bathroom and kitchenette (alarm bells ringing yet?). Needed planning consent so Norm sticks some drawings in. Neighbours are broadly cool with it apparently. Planning officer comes round and makes crystal clear he does not like roof line or material, fenestrations, shape of building, bulk or landscaping or change of use risk to potential separable dwelling. Norm is asked to submit illustrations and amendments. Norm produces a coloured 3d drawing of exactly the same design that was proposed before. It looks rather like kindergarten colouring in (some say). Norm adds a text proposal and in large upper case letters describes himself as an AWARD WINNING ARCHITECT. It is believed (= known) that this caused great hilarity in the planning department. PC was refused on multiple grounds (frankly many of these are rather petty I thought). Norm is allegedly not noted for his ability to win people round with his charm and charisma.

* "Norm" in homage to Norman Foster, an actual award winning architect.

 

[AJB Temple]

In serious response:

I would think clearly about how you want to live and use the space. And your energy needs. As we age, kids leave, hobbies consolidate, etc our requirements evolve and can change radically. How do you spend your relaxing time, do you need fewer rooms really?

If you had a blank plot, what would be your ideal living space. Big open plan kitchen, small TV snug , etc.
What furniture is ideal (beds and sofas especially). I would envisage a major clear out of all "stuff" accumulated over the years. Are you making it age friendly looking forward to when you are a bit older?

Likewise garden, (outdoor eating, relaxing, low maintenance, privacy, hot tub ....whatever). Do you want the house to run into the garden? Garden designers can add real value if you don't know much about plants or how things will develop and behave over the seasons.

Houses are almost entirely about lifestyle, so start with that and adapt the space to your life. Or knock it down and rebuild and get near zero energy and exactly what you want.

Audition architects by reference to their projects and how well you get on. It is evident from many TV design programmes that many architects have all sorts of ideas that cost about double what you can afford to build. Realism about that aspect may be important so ensure via references that your architect is not living in dreamland about what building costs nowadays.

 

[HOJ]

It may sound arrogant but pretty much the first question I ask prior to getting too involved in a project is what is the budget, then you all have an understanding of any limitations.

 

[Sheffield Tony]

It may sound arrogant but pretty much the first question I ask prior to getting too involved in a project is what is the budget, then you all have an understanding of any limitations.

Oddly enough, the one architect I used never asked that. He was even evasive when asked for an indication of how much what he had drawn was likely to cost. Perhaps he was used to clients with bottomless pockets, I dunno. Seems like an essential consideration to me.

 

[Stuart]

We are about to engage an architect for a small extension on the rear of our bungalow. I’ve already ‘designed’ an idea of what we want (as Adrian says, based on how we want to live in this place for the rest of our lives) but I’m wanting the architect to challenge those thoughts and make alternative suggestions.

I’ve already seen a fair bit of his work and in a short meeting we appeared to get on well so hopefully we’ll have a reasonable working relationship. He’s already saved me design time due to part L and the glazing requirements which are going to mean we can’t have exactly what we want.

I think they’re essential to the whole design process and should be challenging our thinking.

 

[Mike G]

Sorry chaps.............family problems have rather taken my time lately.

Yes, in answer to the original question. You need an architect. What you are after is precisely what architects do. Extracting the brief is one of those great un-taught skills that architects require. I'll say to you what I say to every single client......buildings are easy. It's the people that are the complication of our job. By that I mean we need to really dig down to find out what people want from a project, and then we have to wheedle a budget out of them (and their first answer is NEVER the real answer).

.........in later discussions we talked about how some people genuinely didn't know what they wanted and needed an external person to just talk it over with.

Precisely.

I think my recent "Victorian Gothic" thread illustrates the issue nicely. Client says X (very firmly and assuredly), I deliver X, client then realises that they actually want Y instead. Only now are we actually extracting the real brief.

-

Everything starts with a survey. As I am drawing up the existing, most of the obvious alterations have already occurred to me. The initial chat with the clients will have led to some sort of idea as to what their priorities are, but things can be very woolly at that stage. The second meeting, where I present the first stab at the design, is the meeting which counts. I now understand the building much better than at the first meeting, and I will have sown enough seeds with the clients that they hopefully have a better idea of what they are hoping to achieve. So producing a sketch scheme usually triggers the proper design discussion, and we'll scribble all over the drawing with a soft pencil. And I'm often in a position to give a rough budget figure.......which again can affect the design discussion.

And yes, any architect worth his salt will design the exterior spaces, although the planting scheme would be left to others.

 

[Mike G]

.... I’ve already ‘designed’ an idea of what we want.......but I’m wanting the architect to challenge those thoughts and make alternative suggestions........

I think they’re essential to the whole design process and should be challenging our thinking.

Good luck with your project. You are certain to get a good result. You've an idea of what you want, but you're not rigid, and you want the professional's eye to nudge you in the right direction. That's an ideal client from my view-point.

The very worst jobs any architect has to deal with are those people who say "here's my drawing of what we're going to do. I just need you to draw it up properly and get it through planning and building regs". When you look at the drawings they are usually nonsense.

 

[Mike G]

........the one architect I used never asked that. He was even evasive when asked for an indication of how much what he had drawn was likely to cost....

Before I give a budget figure, I always say that the one thing you can be certain of is that it will be wrong. No-one knows what the price will be until the tenders are returned. In normal times, our architects' estimates should be within + or - 10%, I'd say, but we'r not living in normal times. With bigger projects, I ask a quantity surveyor to do the estimate (this costs). I've a relationship with a couple of other local architects, and we each will look the other's projects and give our estimate, when asked. This ensures that mistakes are less horrendous.

The one thing I would say now is that we are living in incredibly volatile times. The cost of oak doubled in a year. Construction timber, bricks, blocks, cement, aggregates........they've all increased vastly. Given that the time between an architect giving an estimate and the project being actually built is often anything up to 2 years, you can see why architectual estimates are such a nightmare to get right. How can we be expected to guess what bricks will cost in a years time?

 

[Mike G]

Just as an amusing aside........

In the good old days a relationship with the council planning department was somewhere between useful and essential. Nowadays, it counts for nothing at all. The processes are endlessly more bureaucratic, and the planning policies are much more tightly drawn. In any sort of domestic-scale project, it will be judged on its merits against the criteria set by local and national planning policy, and it wouldn't matter a jot if it were drawn by a talented elephant or an award winning architect.

 

[AJB Temple]

^^ Interesting Mike. It's a long time since I was involved in property development for money and at that time (20 years ago) you could build up relationships. It's shame that this has been lost as I think that we are very sadly in another period of extremely formulaic building. There is a lot of new build going on in villages / small towns surrounding us, and a lot of it is uninspiring architecture and design inside and out. It is built fast to meet quotas. Planning policy seems to be at the heart of this as there are quotas for starter homes, 2, 3, 4 and 5 bed (all rooms too small) and social housing - which is exactly the same but with cheaper appliances and fittings (eg pressed panel doors). Parking takes precedence over gardens, but with very little rational thought to rain water run off.

I spent three weeks away over Christmas and where my son is presently buying a place (The Hague), there is a planning policy that actively prevents designs being replicated in the same area or small estate, and you get a mixture of traditional dutch and modern dutch townhouses, but all done to modern eco standards. Here in Kent we have developers desperate to get gas boilers fitted before the regs change. In the latest estate a few miles to the north of us there is not one single solar panel or ground source heat pump or flood relief pool or pre-treatment sewerage facility or any attempt at garden design whatsoever.

Ad architects go I think you are very unusual, as you actually build stuff so you know what works.

 

[Tiresias]

I think, as others have said, that you really need to think what it is that you want. If you just go to an architect and say ‘We want to improve the property’ you may get anything.

Maximise the value (actually an architect isn’t qualified to judge value, but any good one will have an idea)? Maximise floor space? Put a slipper bath in your bedroom (don’t laugh, I’ve seen it)? Get your brief sorted out as best you can before you go to anyone.

I’ve worked with/employed many architects in my professional and personal life. They have been variable, just as you would expect from any profession – I’ve had some shockers, and some that I still go out for drinks with. Which, at the end of a development project, is saying something.

MikeG (as a practicing architect) may disagree with my next comment. In my experience architects vary on a spectrum from those that regard themselves as purely ‘creative’ (designs can’t be built, budget/timescales unrealistic) to those that are wholly practical (mundane inoffensive designs almost built by rote). You want something in between those extremes.

And MikeG will probably retort that investment property analysts (or valuers as we used to be called) are money grabbing vultures insensitive to aesthetics. Which we aren’t – aesthetics are fine if they improve profit…

As for budgets – well, every development appraisal I’ve ever done has had a contingency allowance. Used to be 15 to 20%. And that is based on properly estimated build costs. These days I don’t know. In the past I have used up to 30%, if it looked like a pig of a project. Some clients used to squeal about this: ‘fixed price contract; costs are determined; nothing can go wrong’. Yeah, right. Like I’ve not heard that before. Confusion of value and perceived worth.

A suggestion. If you know what you want a building surveyor might be more cost effective to do the technical stuff and project manage. Provided you find the right one. I can’t believe I just recommended building surveyors. God knows I have been rude about them (and to them) for years. But they have their place in society. I guess.

And someone asked why architects don’t do structural calcs. PI cover I suppose. Unless you want to go through the hassle of getting two qualifications. I was actually a qualified engineer before I became a surveyor. But the partnership’s insurers would have had major league kittens if I started giving out structural advice.

Thus ends the rant for today.

 

[AJB Temple]

I've always thought the other reason for differentiating between structural surveyors and architects, is if an architect does both they may have a conflict of interest between design aesthetics and structural integrity. Could push the envelope too much. Better to risk someone else's PII.

 

[Mike G]

.....And someone asked why architects don’t do structural calcs......

Structural engineering is an altogether different profession. Most architects can size rafters, floor joists, and even some of the easier domestic-scale pieces of steel. Some can even do oak framing pieces. However, if these figures require proving to the local authority's satisfaction, then we're simply not qualified to do it. I guess most conductors can tinkle on a piano, but if you want to satisfy a discerning audience, you get a pianist to play the piano and leave the conductor doing whatever it is that conductors do.

-

As for the rest, I didn't detect any ranting, and there is hardly a word I disagree with. I went through university only 20 odd years ago, so I know how poorly the "education" prepares you for the job, and how poorly they select candidates for the courses. It's little wonder that architects vary so much.

 

[BigMonka]

There's some brilliant info in all the post above, thank you all for your input!

I guess we're after maximising the space we have, and although it sounds weird we have a feeling of wanting to realise all the property's potential!

We've got a brilliant loft space (no trusses, good floor size, head height and an existing window on the gable wall) which has previously been wallpapered, making me think that someone once used it as a room. But access is via a normal loft ladder and, whilst being an over-engineered old house, probably won't meet current regs. So it seems like a great space that we aren't fulfilling the potential of.

The second area we're thinking is an old timber conservatory that's coming towards the end of its usable life, so we're considering replacing that with an extension.

Either of those could probably be done quite easily by a decent building contractor, but I was thinking that potentially an architect would help us develop an overall masterplan to be completed over time.

 

[Mike G]

Builders aren't good left alone with loft conversions. They need guidance. There are strict rules on access/ egress, and lobbies etc. (Fire alarms too). You either need a specialist loft-conversion company, or you need an architect (or similar). There is almost always some structural engineering involved, too, which both of those would sort out for you. This work requires BR approval, and again, that's out of the scope of a builder.

My experience of lofts is that the design work generally revolves around the floor below, in finding a path up for a stair. Headroom over the stair means there are generally few options as to location, or that you might need to build a dormer.

Without knowing your circumstances I'm only guessing, but the chances are that you'd planning permission. Again, that's outside the scope of a builder.

The extension is obviously a job for an architect.

 

[Lurker]

My son lives in a small terrace house, like you he had a good loft space, he had a great bedroom built in it.
This entailed halving the second bedroom for the stairs that go up half a flight and then a 90 degree turn.
The house went from having two medium sized bedrooms to having a bigger bedroom in the roof plus a small one that would struggle to have a bed in it and the one on the front that was untouched. So he has much more space but it hardly helps increase the amount of beds you can reasonably get in if you have a big family.
There were lots of rules that were required about fire protection and escape. A competent designer is an absolute must, in his case a local loft company with a very good reputation did it, no architect was involved because the house is very common shape and the company had lots of experience with essentially the same plan. I know that a structural engineer signed off the loading though.

At time, it was well worth doing, but I have my doubts now the costs have risen so much.

 

[HOJ]

an architect would help us develop an overall masterplan to be completed over time.

That is a sensible approach, get everything in for planning all at once, whether you do it all or not, the planning rights should remain in place, (as long as you do some of it).

I worked on a big (for me) project where client had put in planning for various alterations and an extension, but left a couple of elements out, which he then wanted to do, ended up with another rather handsome Architects bill and all the planning fees as well, but we had to wait until permission was approved by which time costs had gone up significantly. We had a plasterboard skip on the job initially, which is expensive, but had to let it go half full, then get another one that went half full as well at the end.

 

[Mike G]

.........I worked on a big (for me) project where client had put in planning for various alterations and an extension, but left a couple of elements out......

If all the elements are equally contentious (or non-contentious), then one application covering them all is obviously the sensible approach. However, I often run into the situation where one part of the proposal is really straightforward and non controversial, and another is much more problematic, and the approach then is very different. I have a couple of these on the go at the moment.

In one, the new house is fine, and the pre-application process showed there were no policy reasons why that shouldn't succeed in getting permission. However, the only space left for a garage was in front of the line of the house, and council were very much more wary of that. So, we'll cover this with 2 applications. There is absolutely no point losing permission for the house because the council don't want the garage.

 

[AJB Temple]

As a matter of interest Mike, do "planning consultants" feature much in your area? There are several in our area in Kent, all self employed one-man bands, and I think all ex Kent planning department employees or officers. They claim to smooth the process of getting consent and claim to be far cheaper than architects. This is probably true (cheaper) but from the limited examples I have seen, the design ability is minimal.

 

[Mike G]

They're really useful. Really, really useful. I wouldn't suggest a member of public goes to one directly, because they don't tend to do drawings, and they don't have any design training or experience, but what they are brilliant at is knowing their way through the endless pieces of planning policy covering the area. Architects simply don't have the time (or indeed the interest) in keeping up to date with every council's planning policy*. The planning consultants do. I use them for initial assessments in instances where I am not sure as to whether of not we can get permission for a site. They'll tell me whether or not I've got a chance, and, more importantly, which policies I need to satisfy.

They're also brilliant at appeals. They've won 2 or 3 cases on appeal for me in the last 3 to 5 years.

* I've worked in probably 8 or 10 council areas in the last 3 or 4 years, and each will have very different planning policy documents which stretch to hundreds of pages. In addition, there are national policies. Plannning consultants know their way around most of this stuff, and keep up to date with changes (there are reviews [= huge bureaucratic consultations and re-writing exercises] every 10 years)........and with relevant court cases and so on.

 

[AJB Temple]

:text-goodpost:

 

[HOJ]

In one, the new house is fine, and the pre-application process showed there were no policy reasons why that shouldn't succeed in getting permission. However, the only space left for a garage was in front of the line of the house, and council were very much more wary of that.

That's an interesting way of doing planning, what happens in the event they wont approve the house but do the garage..just saying

Where I live in a rural village, on a narrow but long street, the local farmer got PP to build 5 Executive modern boxes, totally out of keeping with the 16th century Manor house, the 18 century mansion and the thatch cottage adjacent and opposite to the site, 3 of the new houses have double garages in the front yard adjacent to the road, which at the time planning was being applied for were contentious issues, but still got passed.

"planning consultants"

They're really useful. Really, really useful.

I have introduced one into several client projects that were a bit doubtful, well worth the fee.

 

[Mike G]

In one, the new house is fine, and the pre-application process showed there were no policy reasons why that shouldn't succeed in getting permission. However, the only space left for a garage was in front of the line of the house, and council were very much more wary of that.

That's an interesting way of doing planning, what happens in the event they wont approve the house but do the garage..just saying ......

:lol: :lol: Yeah, that would be a cock up.

We've been through the Pre-App advice system, and got detailed support for the principle of the house, with some minor queries about the design. We then did some to-ing and fro-ing over the design of the house, and ended up with something to everyone's satisfaction. I am as certain as I can be that we'll get permission. And of course, if we don't get permission for the house, we won't apply for the garage.