|
View previous topic :: View next topic
|
| Author |
Message |
csintexas
millennium club
Joined: 06 Feb 2006
Posts: 1676
Location: USA
|
 Posted: Tue Mar 18, 2008 7:51 am Post subject: |
    |
|
People wanting more than they can afford is the biggest problem I continually run in to and I don't see any way to solve it. I have had that same problem where clients don't want to talk about money and budget. Some people are just crazy and you can't be responsible for that. All you can do is document the problems. For example: have them sign a waiver that states you are not responsible for the budget since they declined to discuss it.
_________________
Chris Stewart
Modern Texas Home Project |
|
| Back to top |
|
 |
phansford
Joined: 18 Apr 2004
Posts: 500
Location: SW Ohio
|
| Posted: Tue Mar 18, 2008 9:50 am Post subject: |
|
|
There are ways to handle the issue of budgets. First you have to be forceful that you are not providing cost estimating services and you remind the client during the entire process and continually remind them to have their budget reviewed by a contractor.
The AIA Owner-Architect agreement for small projects has language such as The Owner shall engage the services of a General Contractor to construct the project and to develop probable costs of construction for the project.
I also add in my contract the following statement under the Basis of Payment.
"Payment for these services are not contingent on the eventual construction of this project. Nor is payment of Contingent on obtaining a zoning permit, building permit, or project financing"
Basically - building language in your contract and then being diligent and persistent about budget, zoning and so on (basically - controlling expectations and perceptions) during the entire project is important. And its important that that conversation come from a Principle and not an employee of the firm. (Its not a slight - its a perception of knowledge and authority)
We can provide cost estimates (I prefer to call them "Probable Cost of Construction") and I hire a third-party firm to provide that service. It gives the Owner some security that I am not padding or shaving numbers to make him happy. Our Cost Estimator does not have a horse in that race. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Steve Woolf
Joined: 14 Apr 2004
Posts: 43
Location: Amherst, MA
|
| Posted: Fri May 02, 2008 9:52 pm Post subject: |
|
|
I like what I hear from the person who started this thread. A client that has thought about how the main elements of the house relate to each other, and presumably the site, and has come up with an idea for a shape. Sharing the creative process with my clients is always a good thing. There is no rule for designing a house as powerful the commitment to be as responsive as possible to ALL the forces that shape a house -- not the least of which is the client, their budget, preferences, preconceptions, culture, etc. An architect's best work is done with this collaboration, because when a better design emerges during the design process, all parties are excited to go with the improvement, regardless of who thought of it.
I agree with much of John Henry's posts here, and his houses are marvelous, and so were Palladio's. But sticking with tried and true forms and styles is at its root, a matter of convenience for the designer as well as the builder, because so many questions are already answered. Clients go along because of the predictability of the look and the cost.
My mentors were Wright and Aalto, and maybe more Aalto than anyone. If you know his work, you know that forcing a design into a styled form is totally out of the question. And while all his buildings are totally original, they are not crazy, but rather rational and serenely beautiful at the same time.
We need to move residential design ahead, in new directions that are exciting, not enslaving. We are now in the doldrums of what I have dubbed "Turkey Architecture - Gable Gable Gable" and the developers are flocking in this direction as though it is "what people want." They are intentionally dumbing down the public's view of what design can do for them, and architects and thinking homeowners like the author of this thread are duly frustrated.
Stephen Woolf
www.woolfarchitect.com |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Steve Woolf
Joined: 14 Apr 2004
Posts: 43
Location: Amherst, MA
|
| Posted: Fri May 02, 2008 9:52 pm Post subject: |
|
|
I like what I hear from the person who started this thread. A client that has thought about how the main elements of the house relate to each other, and presumably the site, and has come up with an idea for a shape. Sharing the creative process with my clients is always a good thing. There is no rule for designing a house as powerful the commitment to be as responsive as possible to ALL the forces that shape a house -- not the least of which is the client, their budget, preferences, preconceptions, culture, etc. An architect's best work is done with this collaboration, because when a better design emerges during the design process, all parties are excited to go with the improvement, regardless of who thought of it.
I agree with much of John Henry's posts here, and his houses are marvelous, and so were Palladio's. But sticking with tried and true forms and styles is at its root, a matter of convenience for the designer as well as the builder, because so many questions are already answered. Clients go along because of the predictability of the look and the cost.
My mentors were Wright and Aalto, and maybe more Aalto than anyone. If you know his work, you know that forcing a design into a styled form is totally out of the question. And while all his buildings are totally original, they are not crazy, but rather rational and serenely beautiful at the same time.
We need to move residential design ahead, in new directions that are exciting, not enslaving. We are now in the doldrums of what I have dubbed "Turkey Architecture - Gable Gable Gable" and the developers are flocking in this direction as though it is "what people want." They are intentionally dumbing down the public's view of what design can do for them, and architects and thinking homeowners like the author of this thread are duly frustrated.
Stephen Woolf
www.woolfarchitect.com |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
birgco
Joined: 01 May 2007
Posts: 286
|
| Posted: Sat May 03, 2008 7:34 pm Post subject: |
|
|
Steve,
| Quote: | | We need to move residential design ahead, in new directions that are exciting, not enslaving. We are now in the doldrums of what I have dubbed "Turkey Architecture - Gable Gable Gable" and the developers are flocking in this direction as though it is "what people want." They are intentionally dumbing down the public's view of what design can do for them, and architects and thinking homeowners like the author of this thread are duly frustrated. |
I agree with most of your post but I think there are two separate issues when talking about moving residential design ahead regarding developers and the public at large. Developers will for the most part be subject to the lowest common denominator, trying to design and build a "one size fits all" product that probably won't win too many awards. The economic risks they run when building a large project doesn't leave much room for error and possibly
choosing a new "exciting" design that the public (for whatever reason) doesn't want.
The general public may be looking to traditional or "gable architecture" to
help satisfy a need for a connectiveness to the past, to gain a sense of calm in a hectic, fast moving modern world.
It always seems to come back to the question that even if the design community leads the "public" to water, can they make them drink? |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
mx2
millennium club
Joined: 18 Jan 2006
Posts: 1909
Location: Miami, Florida
|
| Posted: Tue May 06, 2008 8:35 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Quote: | | I like what I hear from the person who started this thread. A client that has thought about how the main elements of the house relate to each other, and presumably the site... |
Collaboration was the quintessential aspect of your insight...without that, it almost seems apologetic for extraneously demanding clients. That is a very large presumption as most of the time (I know I am generalizing) clients have preconceived notions of shape that have little to do with sense but rather are borne from style or some other arbitrary form they have become enamored with. And that is also a very large presumtion of myself...hence my point. It makes no difference...without collaboration, there is no project. The best projects are entirely collaborative endeavours...whereas I find the original poster to be unfairly critical of the architect. And I reiterate; we don;t have the entire picture in my humble opinion...
mx2.5
_________________
*Art of Architecture: The conscious use of skill and creative imagination in the production of an aesthetic building.
*Science of Architecture: The calculated use of technical skill and knowledge in the construction of a functional building. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
modjohn
Joined: 07 Nov 2007
Posts: 31
Location: Kansas, USA
|
| Posted: Tue May 13, 2008 8:55 pm Post subject: |
|
|
I believe that if you offer the public water (good design), most will not drink. Either they do not have any thirst for such a thing or do not realize that it is available. Sadly, most people have a list of things they find important when purchasing a house. These include the monthly payment, the square footage, the neighborhood, local schools, etc. Good design is either very low on the list or not on the list at all.
Realistically, there is only a small percentage of people who are willing to go the extra mile for something special and are willing to pay for it. You should appreciate anyone who walks in your door requesting a drink, for they are the exception. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
mx2
millennium club
Joined: 18 Jan 2006
Posts: 1909
Location: Miami, Florida
|
| Posted: Wed May 14, 2008 10:34 am Post subject: |
|
|
I firmly believe it is a misconception that Architects are required for every single project. The general public doesn't deal directly with Architects. And then there is the case for "Architecture without Architects"...
mx2.5
_________________
*Art of Architecture: The conscious use of skill and creative imagination in the production of an aesthetic building.
*Science of Architecture: The calculated use of technical skill and knowledge in the construction of a functional building. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
blogger
del.icio.us
digg
slashdot
