|
View previous topic :: View next topic
|
| Author |
Message |
MRBILL
Joined: 07 Feb 2007
Posts: 4
|
 Posted: Thu Feb 08, 2007 4:30 am Post subject: plans available on internet |
    |
|
| I am planning on building my retirement home on the eastern shore of Virginia. I am wondering if anyone knows anything about house plans that can be bought on the internet. How complete are these house plans and soes it generally cost a lot of additional money to have an architect modify the floor plans? Are they worth the expense? Reproduceable plans usually cost around $1100 which includes copyright release. |
|
| Back to top |
|
 |
phansford
Joined: 18 Apr 2004
Posts: 832
Location: SW Ohio
|
| Posted: Thu Feb 08, 2007 5:49 am Post subject: |
|
|
Mr. Bill,
Thanks for stopping by......
Purchasing house plans from a plans service is a great way to get an architect designed house at a fraction of the cost. The most notable architect to start a Plan Service was Jack Bloodgood. His firm is still doing house plans as well as one-of-a-kind custom designed homes.
The problem most people encounter when they purchase house plans from a service is they want to modify the design. In doing so, you usually end up changing the structural design, which leads you into needing a design professional to assist you. From my position, as a Registered Architect, any modification I make to a design makes me liable for the entire building. Therefore, we just start over and our fee is not really reduced. If I am going to have responsibility and liability, then I am going to make sure the entire package meets my review and standards. There may be some savings in the Schematic Design phase.
Also, many of the drawings I have seen from a plan service have caveat statements like, "Drawings shall be reviewed by a local engineer or architect to determine design meets local building code." So you end up hiring an architect/engineer anyway. But for less money. Many architects won't review this drawings because of liability.
So ....... to answer your question......
If you are going to purchase a set of plans from a Service, you really don't want to be making any changes to the original design. You want to contract with a home builder who has experience working from house plans and can verify the design meets code. Typically the concern is structural.
Or
You can contact the Plan Service and they will typically make modifications for you for a fee. They should also be able to back-check the design to your local building code. (Local building codes are typically a modified version of a national model code - so - typically speaking- the designer will have access to the code for your area)
Or
If you are making a lot of changes, use the design(s) you like as a visual program. Take the design(s) and contract with a local design professional. They can then design your new home to meet your specific needs and your specific site. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
csintexas
millennium club
Joined: 06 Feb 2006
Posts: 2174
Location: USA
|
| Posted: Thu Feb 08, 2007 6:36 am Post subject: |
|
|
Hi mrbill,
I ditto everything phansford said. Stock plans may be a good choice if you don't need to make changes.
_________________
-Chris Stewart
http://bcshdb.blogspot.com >
The B/CS Home Design Blog |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
TMW Design
Joined: 08 Feb 2007
Posts: 1
|
| Posted: Thu Feb 08, 2007 9:29 pm Post subject: |
|
|
I run my own business designing residential homes and small commercial projects. I also sell stock plans. I can work with you to design a custom home at an affordable price. Although I focus working in my local community from time to time I work with clients in different parts of the US. Shoot me an email and I can give your further details. You can visit my website but it has not been updated for almost a year now.
Thomas
TMW Design
www.tmwdesign.com
www.garageplansonline.com |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
cdigs
Joined: 12 Feb 2007
Posts: 4
|
| Posted: Mon Feb 12, 2007 1:36 pm Post subject: |
|
|
It's been excruciatingly difficult to find an affordable RA to help me modify a stock plan that I plan on purchasing. I figured that it would be an easy project for a local RA, but it does not seem like this is the case.
I can understand that there is liability involved in the equation, but it's not as if these plans are being designed without consideration to code requirements (of course, exclusive of specific local ones).
If any NJ RA's are interested in my (small) project, a summary of the plan and modifications can be seen here:
http://www.charliedigital.com/docs/bartell-summary.doc
http://www.charliedigital.com/docs/bartell-summary.pdf
Please contact via email: cchen[at]charliedigital.com |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
phansford
Joined: 18 Apr 2004
Posts: 832
Location: SW Ohio
|
| Posted: Tue Feb 13, 2007 8:17 am Post subject: |
|
|
cdigs,
I reviewed your summary. A couple of questions.....
Is a registered architect required for residential work in your area? If not, why not take your drawings to a draftsman or a residential designer.
Do you have a builder? They might be able to provide the revised drawings as part of their scope. They might have a draftsman they use.
There are two issues here as an architect - beyond liability.
One is your design budget. Is it realistic? You might think it is, but you might be finding out that you need to spend $4 - 6K to get these drawings produced. Even a draftsman is going to have a lot of time in reproducing this work. Let's say it takes 80 hours ..... times $65 per hour for a draftsman = $5,200.
The other is, that as an architect, I'm interested in design, not drafting. If you came to my office and asked me for a fee for your project, I would try to convince you to go somewhere else, such as a draftsman. You have the design, what value do I bring to your project? What makes it interesting for me? I am an expensive draftsman and I am not lowering my hourly rate to draft someone elses work. I turn this type of work down a lot. I won't be interested in the project, you won't be willing to pay my fee, and you would be better served by a draftsman. It is in my best interest to decline this type of work and you be happy elsewhere. You might appreciate my frankness and come back to us for a project where you need design services.
Simply stated, Architects are not draftsman.
You might also contact your local HBA chapter. They should have members who are draftsman or residential designer more suited to assist you.
Good luck |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
cdigs
Joined: 12 Feb 2007
Posts: 4
|
| Posted: Tue Feb 13, 2007 8:49 am Post subject: |
|
|
| phansford wrote: | cdigs,
I reviewed your summary. A couple of questions.....
Is a registered architect required for residential work in your area? If not, why not take your drawings to a draftsman or a residential designer.
|
After speaking with the township construction official, I believe that a sealed set of drawings is not strictly required, but highly encouraged. I am under the impression that the township will simply give me a hard time on the approval process without a sealed set of prints >.<
| Quote: |
Do you have a builder? They might be able to provide the revised drawings as part of their scope. They might have a draftsman they use.
|
Yes, we are in the process of working with a GC and he did offer his draftsmen, but are draftsmen qualified to provide a sealed set of drawings? If not, and the township gives us a hard time, then I would ultimately end up having to pay for an RA anyways. My thought is to get it taken care of by an RA in the first place to save the aggrevation later on.
| Quote: |
One is your design budget. Is it realistic? You might think it is, but you might be finding out that you need to spend $4 - 6K to get these drawings produced. Even a draftsman is going to have a lot of time in reproducing this work. Let's say it takes 80 hours ..... times $65 per hour for a draftsman = $5,200.
|
This is very true. The very reason to go with a stock plan, at least in my case, is a budgetary concern. We're building our first house (had a townhouse previously) and I'm trying to cinch the pursestrings where I can (so to speak). I honestly figured it would be easy and affordable to get an architect to review the plans and seal them, but this is proving to not be the case...
| Quote: |
The other is, that as an architect, I'm interested in design, not drafting. If you came to my office and asked me for a fee for your project, I would try to convince you to go somewhere else, such as a draftsman. You have the design, what value do I bring to your project? What makes it interesting for me? I am an expensive draftsman and I am not lowering my hourly rate to draft someone elses work. I turn this type of work down a lot. I won't be interested in the project, you won't be willing to pay my fee, and you would be better served by a draftsman. It is in my best interest to decline this type of work and you be happy elsewhere. You might appreciate my frankness and come back to us for a project where you need design services.
Simply stated, Architects are not draftsman.
|
I can definitely appreciate the artistry associated with architecture and the desire to create original works. As a software engineer (and a moonlighting web designer), I have the same feelings towards working on the work of others as opposed to creating original works so I understand the feeling of creative pride and the satisfaction that brings.
As Fred Brooks writes in The Mythical Man Month:
"Why is programming fun? First is the sheer joy of making things. As the child delights in his mud pie, so the adult enjoys building things, especially things of his own design. I think this delight must be an image of God's delight in making things, a delight shown in the distinctness and newness of each leaf and each snowflake.
Second is the pleasure of making things that are useful to other people. Deep within, we want others to use our work and to find it helpful.
Third is the fascination of fashioning complex puzzle like objects of interlocking moving parts and watching them work in subtle cycles, playing out the consequences of principles built in from the beginning."
In that sense, architecture is not so much different from software engineering. And yet, the response that I receive from architects is nothing short of disdain for even proposing the usage of a stock plan. In the software engineering world, reuse and componentization is encouraged and viewed as the pinnacle of design. I gladly reuse and integrate existing libraries where such things will help me get my projects done faster, quicker, and easier. I shun clients from seeking to rebuild the wheel when it simply isn't necessary.
I spoke with one architect and asked if she had ever seen designs by the specific architect that was the source of my plan, which is published in several books and magazines, and she flat out said that she doesn't look at other people's work. I this type of isolationist attitude odd since in software, we learn and broaden our horizon's by seeing what others do, incorporating good design patterns into our own works, and drawing inspiration for what one could term "mash-ups". No person exists in a vacuum and certainly, there is always something to be learned from the creative efforts of others. There is creativity, and then there is elitism.
We are all artists in a sense, but there is a time for artistry and there is a time for making a quick buck and keeping the money flowing 
To be honest, I think many architects are not being realistic about the fact that more and more people will start to use stock plans purchased online as the sites propagate and more plans become available to a wider audience (at least in the residential space). These things will become a commodity, much like software control libraries and computers. Of course, there will always be those sweet gigs where the budget allows for 5-15% to be expended on architectural services, just like in the software world where many large clients simply prefer that a library or package that is written from the ground up for them, but the reality is that such cases are the exception and not the rule in software and residential architecture may be headed in the same direction as a new generation of first time home builders, raised in the Internet Age, start to build.
But I don't get it, yes, it's not as sexy or exciting, but I can't imagine that, provided with the CAD file, it would be an arduous task....I can't even find someone who will seal the drawings, as-is (well, at least at a resonable price).
| Quote: |
You might also contact your local HBA chapter. They should have members who are draftsman or residential designer more suited to assist you.
Good luck |
Thanks for the insight. I'm going to go into the township offices and clear up the requirements. The last thing I want is to be bogged down in the township approval/review process because the plans are not sealed...
Are there resources online for architects that cover such matters like local codes, approval/review processes, and what not? If so, it would be much appreciated if you could point me to such a resource. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
phansford
Joined: 18 Apr 2004
Posts: 832
Location: SW Ohio
|
| Posted: Tue Feb 13, 2007 10:19 am Post subject: |
|
|
| cdigs wrote: |
After speaking with the township construction official, I believe that a sealed set of drawings is not strictly required, but highly encouraged. I am under the impression that the township will simply give me a hard time on the approval process without a sealed set of prints >.< |
If the state of NJ does not require a licensed architect to provide residential design, local jurisdications typically can't override state law. They might just have an issue with certain draftsman and the quality of work they get from them. Ask the blunt question - "Which draftsmans prepares a nice set of drawings".
| cdigs wrote: | | I honestly figured it would be easy and affordable to get an architect to review the plans and seal them, but this is proving to not be the case... |
Most state laws require that any documents we seal must be prepared under our supervision. Therefore reviewing and stamping a set of drawings prepared by others is against the law. We can lose our license.
There is also the issue of copyrights. I can't seal copyrighted material and claim it as mine own, which sealing it amounts to doing.
| cdigs wrote: | ....... the response that I receive from architects is nothing short of disdain for even proposing the usage of a stock plan.
...........I spoke with one architect and asked if she had ever seen designs by the specific architect that was the source of my plan, which is published in several books and magazines, and she flat out said that she doesn't look at other people's work. I this type of isolationist attitude odd since in software, we learn and broaden our horizon's by seeing what others do, incorporating good design patterns into our own works, and drawing inspiration for what one could term "mash-ups". No person exists in a vacuum and certainly, there is always something to be learned from the creative efforts of others. There is creativity, and then there is elitism. |
Lots of stuff in this comment...... First, most architects do not do residential work and see no value in stock plans. You need to read the story about Jack Bloodgood, an architect who started a plan service in the 1960's. The AIA tried to ban him for such "heresy"  Now architects all over are creating stock house plans and even pre-manufactured housing units. However, the bulk of the profession find this disgusting.
Quite honestly, if you asked me about someone who's doing house plans in those plans magazines, I would not know them. They don't get published in the architectural press. Its not considered High Art by the profession. This is not cutting edge stuff. Can you name anyone doing standard residential stuff when Frank Lloyd Wright was creating the Prairie House (1893-1914)? I can't. So your statement is unfair.
Home Builders control the housing market not architects. Most of the stuff being designed and built is pretty bad stuff. It is rare that an architect is involved. For all intents and purposes, Architects have no voice in the marketplace. I could write an entire disseration on this topic. We don't have time or the space to discuss it in length on this forum. Home builders view houses as "products". Architects do not. There is a huge difference.
Concerning the architect that says she does look at other work, she's full of it and herself. She might not look at the stuff in the house plan magazine...... I don't....... but she is certainly looking at work being published in the architectural press and historical figures she likes. She probably wants to design modern houses, which is not your project.
FWIW - I am pretty sure my parent's house was built from a stock plan by National Home Planning Service (1964). Its a one-story ranch on a slab. Standard mid-60's fare. No elistism here.
| cdigs wrote: | | To be honest, I think many architects are not being realistic about the fact that more and more people will start to use stock plans purchased online as the sites propagate and more plans become available to a wider audience (at least in the residential space). |
Again, most architects don't do residential design. They don't care.
| cdigs wrote: | | Are there resources online for architects that cover such matters like local codes, approval/review processes, and what not? If so, it would be much appreciated if you could point me to such a resource. |
Most local codes are based on national model codes. They are propiertary.... you have to buy them.
IN CLOSING......
You need to determine if your project is in need of an architect. My gut feeling say no. If your builder has a draftsman who can prepare your drawings, then use him. Make the builder soley responsible for dealing with the building department and getting the permit. You don't need to be involved. The Builder has to eventually work with the building department during construction anyway - so put the burden on him. The builder doing spec houses or stock houses such as a Drees or a Crossman is taking care of the drawings and permits. Reduce your stress. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
cdigs
Joined: 12 Feb 2007
Posts: 4
|
| Posted: Tue Feb 13, 2007 10:57 am Post subject: |
|
|
phansford, I appreciate the time you're taking to come up with these replies (useful info).
But this discussion has me thinking on a tangent now.
| Quote: |
Quite honestly, if you asked me about someone who's doing house plans in those plans magazines, I would not know them. They don't get published in the architectural press. Its not considered High Art by the profession.
|
I would argue that these things are not mutually exclusive. Is DeNiro less of an actor or artist for having starred in "Meet the Parents" (a mass market appeal comedy) or "Analyze This"? Should we shun Keifer Sutherland for his role in "24", which again, appeals to a mass market and compare that work to his role in say, "Dark City" or "L.A. Confidential"? Is his artistry compromised for appealing to a larger audience?
| Quote: | | This is not cutting edge stuff. Can you name anyone doing standard residential stuff when Frank Lloyd Wright was creating the Prairie House (1893-1914)? I can't. So your statement is unfair. |
This is an odd statement to make. It raises the question, then, will anyone remember 99.7% of the architects of today 100 years from now. As I'm unfamiliar with the current architectural landscape and who's who, I cannot say who will be remembered and who will not. But I would gather that of the 100+ architects listed in my local phone directory will NOT be remember 100 years from now. And yet, I have had people cut me off before I've even finished my sentence (as soon as they hear the words "stock plan").
Can you remember any notable chefs from 1969? And yet, in 1969, Dave Thomas founded Wendy's, a fast food joint serving the masses, and his name and brand will live on for decades still. Henry Ford is remembered as being an innovator, yes, but his innovation is that he made his product affordable and accessible to the average blue collar worker of the time.
Not every basketball player is a Jordan, not every artist, inventor, or sculptor is a da Vinci, not every architect is a Wright, not every mathematician is a Newton. It's simple reality that there can only be so many great people in a given field and even out of those, only a small handful will be remembered long past their time.
| Quote: | | This is not cutting edge stuff. |
This also got my attention. One could say the same about say, wine making or cheese making. One could say the same about the extraction and preparation of silk. One could say the same about metalsmithing. These are practices that are steeped in tradition and the exact opposite of cutting edge. And yet, there is satisfaction in doing any of the above to a certain level of competancy to create a superior product that is recognized and appreciated by the consumer (whether mass market or not). Of what importance is it whether a project is residential or commercial? Is it simply about recognition? Or is it about building something that someone will appreciate and find pleasure in inhabiting? |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
phansford
Joined: 18 Apr 2004
Posts: 832
Location: SW Ohio
|
| Posted: Tue Feb 13, 2007 1:26 pm Post subject: |
|
|
You bring up a lot of good points, many which I agree with.....
In terms of art, you can't compare DeNiro to DeNiro. You have to compare Deniro to a "B" movie actor. We will remember an actor like DeNiro, but not a Tommy Kirk. I certainly don't think DeNiro would compare his work in Taxi Driver or Godfather Part II to Meet the Parents. He could only bring so much to the script. Personally I am partial to Mad Dog and Glory.
Likewise, we all know Frank Lloyd Wright, but do you know who Bruce Price is? Probably not. He was a residential architect who worked in the Shingle Style and was well-published at the start of Mr. Wright's career. If you ask the 100 architects in your phone book, they won't know him. But his work is very nice and noteworthy in his region.
I don't think you can compare Popular Culture with High Art. Taxi Driver is high art, Meet the Parents is pop culture. Do you really want to compare the songwriting talent of a John Lennon to faceless writers of the current pop drivel exemplied by American Idol? I would hope that the song Imagine has more meaning to you than Fergalicious. It has a nice beat, I can dance to it, but its meaningless.
As far as the 100 architects in your phone book. There will be a few who will have had the opportunity to design an important civic building or have a client that is more patron than client and they will be able to create a notable building for their local community. People will drive by that building in a 100 years and say, "John Smith was the architect for that building.... isn't it beautiful!", but they won't be able to name any other works by him. And no one will know him outside of his local community.
Historians will determine what building was important and what building was not. There are architects who will be world-renown, national renown, and locally-renown. There will be many who are never known but to their friends, family and clients.
Many architects think their work is important or that they are too important to do certain types of work. They take themselves too seriously. Many architects yearn for design awards and to be published. They think that is the definition of success. I don't. I have been involved with award winning work and I have seen projects published...... big deal.
When I was younger, I worked for a well-known architect here in Dayton. He won many awards, was a Loebe Fellow at Harvard, published. I worked on a little vinyl-sided house for him during my stay. It wasn't high art, but we invested the proper amount of effort into the design for it be of the quality we wanted to maintain.
| cdigs wrote: | | Not every basketball player is a Jordan, not every artist, inventor, or sculptor is a da Vinci, not every architect is a Wright, not every mathematician is a Newton. It's simple reality that there can only be so many great people in a given field and even out of those, only a small handful will be remembered long past their time. |
This is true, but that doesn't stop or shouldn't stop people from pushing themselves to the highest level of work they can personally achieve. Why should I resign myself to do mediocre work when I can push myself to do the best work I can possibly do.
I have a different view of architecture than many of my peers. I have work that is High Fashion and some that is purely technical. As a business person, I have to also determine which projects will advance my firm's portifolio and/or client base. Some projects I take solely because of the client and that the client will be a continuing source of revenue for years to come. Other projects I accept as they will challenge me artistically or I want to build in a particular location..... such as my hometown.
You have to take the response you have gotten on your project from your local architects with a grain of salt. It's not personal. And many of their egos are inflated.
You might ask the next architect you call who they would recommend for a project such as yours. There will be an architect who isn't going to wrinkle his nose at your project and will gladly assist you. You just haven't found that person.
I really try to gage whether we are a good fit with a project and/or client. I have met a few clients and know right away we won't work well together. Life is too short. I would rather be honest with myself and potential clients than have a project/relationship go south. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
csintexas
millennium club
Joined: 06 Feb 2006
Posts: 2174
Location: USA
|
| Posted: Tue Feb 13, 2007 7:36 pm Post subject: |
|
|
I think your builder should know what it takes to get plans through the process. If he uses a draftsman than he probably knows that will work.
You might also also look under house plans for residential designers or the AIBD website for building designers in your area.
_________________
-Chris Stewart
http://bcshdb.blogspot.com >
The B/CS Home Design Blog |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
rltarch
Joined: 18 Apr 2006
Posts: 31
Location: Dublin, Ohio
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
RSCarcht
Joined: 02 Feb 2007
Posts: 114
Location: USA: RI, CT, NY, MA, FL
|
| Posted: Sun Feb 18, 2007 11:35 am Post subject: Stock plans vs Architecture |
|
|
This is an interesting and informative debate between the way architecture is seen by the public (cdigs) and an architect (phansford) and is probably representative of each camp. The striking thing is the would-be homeowner is about to make the biggest investment of their life and undertake a journey (home construction) many have found fraught with peril and is focused totally on low price. This is like shopping south of the boarder for a heart transplant. Architecture is highly specific (local codes, specific site conditions, individual programmatic needs, limited construction budgets) and is the exact opposite of a commodity.
Architects often more than save their fees by allowing for competitive bidding of construction and are there to help the homeowner from being picked clean by unscrupulous contractors, of which there are some. Building a home is not like going to Wal-mart to buy a stereo. I would say that cdigs would be better off buying an existing house and letting the homebuilders mess with the stock plans they use. These homes are often built for surface appearance only and the short cuts that have been taken to save money and increase profit are only evident months or years after the builder has unloaded the property.
America is a young country and is only beginning to appreciate the value of quality as opposed to quantity. When the average person looks with disdain on the suburban house with the silly "gable in gable" design and the giant two car garage sticking out the front of the house like an oversized nose, only then will our nation bring architecture out of the margins of the construction industry. The economic success of Seaside is a hopeful sign for the future of architecture. This process may take another fifty years, but those "builder specials" will not age well and won't look like much of a bargain twenty years after they are first inhabited.
As a nation we need to focus on "life cycle cost"--using our resources efficiently for the long term. This means being more energy efficient and putting up buildings we will be proud of in fifty or a hundred years. In the years after World War II the world's money flowed to us as the only intact industrial power and we got fat and lazy. Now we are beset by competition on all fronts and our ability to marshal our resources in a smart way is our only hope to stay in the race. I would even say the economic future of our nation is at stake in the types of decisions that people like "cdigs" are going to make.
_________________
Ross Sinclair Cann, AIA APA
http://www.a4arch.com
Last edited by RSCarcht on Wed Mar 07, 2007 7:06 am; edited 3 times in total |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
rltarch
Joined: 18 Apr 2006
Posts: 31
Location: Dublin, Ohio
|
| Posted: Sun Feb 18, 2007 2:56 pm Post subject: |
|
|
This topic has bandied about for so long in so many forums - magazines, internet, etc...and still, Architects don't get it.
As an Architect I know how all of you other Architects feel - frustrated that the public doesn't "appreciate" the wonderful things we can do - and buying homes from builders instead of hiring Architects to create Architecture.
But what are you going to say to a guy who builds and sells a "hack builder home" and walks away from the closing with $150,000 in his pocket? That he needs to listen to you?
And yet, when we have great ideas - when we have the "solutions" to the problem of design and housing, what do we do? We expect homebuilders and developers to finance our fantasies. We can't understand why homebuilders don't turn to us for better design when we know we can help them. We don't understand why homeowners would walk into a neighborhood of "substandard" homes and buy one of those instead of calling us.
Well my colleagues, here's the answer: builders and developers are busy providing houses for people while we're busy providing philosophy and pretty pictures (and not-so-pretty pictures, too; do we really think the average homebuyer is interesed in the sanitized modernist homes featured in Residential Architect magazine?). Until Architects put their money on the line - until Architects become the developers and builders - until Architects start taking the financial risks that builders and developers routinely take - we're not going to gain ground on anybody.
If our houses are so much better, then why don't we buy some land and build them? The public will beat a path to our door, right? Why should an otherwise successful builder or developer take the financial risk on our dreams? Hmm?
In my practice we're in awe of the clients who have the courage to walk into our office and engage us to design a home. Could you do that? Could you plunk down tens of thousands of dollars in fees and hundreds of thousands of dollars of construction costs for something you've never seen and something you won't really know for sure that you like until it's built - and it's too late to do anything about it?
If you could, would you spend thousands of dollars to have your refrigerator designed for you - when there are suitable units already built and with a warranty, no less - for sale and immediate delivery at Lowe's?
Of course not.
Buying an existing home, or buying a plan book home, or buying a house plan from a builder's design inventory is the closest thing that John Q. Public has to a test drive.
I know people who spend millions on their houses and could obviously afford to hire an Architect but don't - because they can't bring themselves to spend that kind of money on something so unknown. How many of your clients truly understand the drawings they're looking at? I imagine that's even more prevalent at lower price levels.
Why don't we Architects get that?
Until we start thinking like the public we aim to serve, we're going to continue to find ourselves on the outside looking in when it comes to the single-family home market in America.
But what do we do when we get a client in the office? We treat them like they're lucky to have us. We listen to what they say, but not what they really mean, and then we try to jam our design ideas down their throat and charge them an arm and a leg. Why? Because we know better, of course!
No wonder builders control the market!
Some Architects out there get it - they're putting their money where their drafting tables are. They're forming teams with developers. They're doing market research. They're finding quantifiable ways of measuring the value of better design.
They're designing better homes and selling the plans on the internet. They're publishing plan books. They're writing popular books about better design (anyone ever heard of Sarah Susanka?).
We need to get over ourselves and start making it happen instead of whining about "hack builders" and "unenlightened clients".
What' stopping you from putting a better house on the street?
Richard Taylor, AIA
_________________
Residential Architecture Studio
Blog - Sense Of Place |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
RSCarcht
Joined: 02 Feb 2007
Posts: 114
Location: USA: RI, CT, NY, MA, FL
|
| Posted: Sun Feb 18, 2007 4:03 pm Post subject: House plans |
|
|
I wanted to provoke a reaction; but WOW! It must have been the slam on silly "gable in gable" designs that lit the rocket!
Architects will never be able to "jam" their ideas down homeowners throats and it is the last thing I would like to see. We are creating custom suits for the people with the style, good taste and (quite frankly) money to purchase them. Our firm has more clients than we can handle and the problem is finding enough qualified staff to meet the demand so I assure your there are no sour grapes here. The only thing that I object to is seeing people buy plaid, bellbottom houses that some real estate broker told them is fashionable. In ten years the house will look tired dated and trite--not a very good investment for the poor buyers or the country as a whole for that matter.
Where I think architects have done a poor job doing is educating the public. I don't mean inculcating them with our "fantasies." I mean letting them know that great architecture of EVERY era has always been built on "Firmitas, Commoditas and Venustas"--Solidity, Efficiency and Beauty. It is these characteristics, wedded to the technology of any given era, that give a work of architecture "authenticity" and longterm value.
You are arguing "give the people what they want" and the makers of reality TV shows and and Brittany Spears producers would agree with you. I am suggesting, that as a profession, maybe giving the people the grammar and literature of history as a starting point might just lead to the commissioning of more great works and fewer romance novels. You can pander or you can educate but it is a little hard to do both.
_________________
Ross Sinclair Cann, AIA APA
http://www.a4arch.com
Last edited by RSCarcht on Mon Feb 19, 2007 11:04 am; edited 1 time in total |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
blogger
del.icio.us
digg
slashdot
