|
View previous topic :: View next topic
|
| Author |
Message |
csintexas
millennium club
Joined: 06 Feb 2006
Posts: 1776
Location: USA
|
 Posted: Mon Nov 12, 2007 9:13 pm Post subject: |
    |
|
Sounds like your taking it in stride, that's good. And better luck with your next choice.
_________________
Chris Stewart
Modern Texas Home Project |
|
| Back to top |
|
 |
phansford
Joined: 18 Apr 2004
Posts: 534
Location: SW Ohio
|
| Posted: Tue Nov 13, 2007 6:00 am Post subject: |
|
|
| yxh0300 wrote: | Thank you guys. I think what we need is a really good architect. It is not like we insisted to have a boomerang shape. I think they really did not listen to us. Here are some examples: We wanted the master bedroom and my daughter's room to have water views, they did not take this into consideration. We wanted to have the kitchen close to the garage entrance, they did not put this into any of their plans. We wanted an open floor plan, their plans did not give us that either... You are right. The fault is on both sides. It is due to lack of communication (made more difficult by us being in a different state from the architect). They never told us what was wrong with our boomerang idea, other than to say that it's more expensive than other designs. We studied their plans very carefully (including painstakingly putting their paper plans into software so we could get a 3-D idea of what it would 'feel' like to be standing in each) and none of the plans felt as big as the boomerang shape (despite the fact that some had bigger footprints) - that is why we sent them ours again. Well, things happen. We are learning from it.  |
I will go back to my orginal comment - you have every right to contact the architect and demand a full or partial refund. Services were rendered but to what level of satisifaction? What amount of money are we talking about (round figures)? Hundreds or thousands.
How did you find this architect? Referral - Phone book? If it was a referral - you need to contact the person who referred them and tell them about your experience.
Did you have a written contract? What state and lake are we talking about?
You might consider working with an architect near home to develop the schematic design, then having a builder near the lake who has access to a draftsman or architect to develop the final construction drawings. As the construction drawings are being developed, the builder can be developing cost budgets for the project. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
yxh0300
Joined: 09 Nov 2007
Posts: 7
|
| Posted: Thu Nov 15, 2007 9:34 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| It is a referral. We signed the schematic design contract but we have not got to the detail design phase. It is in North Carolina. The number is around $5000. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
phansford
Joined: 18 Apr 2004
Posts: 534
Location: SW Ohio
|
| Posted: Fri Nov 16, 2007 5:55 am Post subject: |
|
|
Concerning the referral - call that person today. Tell them your experience. If the referral is friends of the architect, contractor, or past client - they should let the architect know how disappointed THEY are that you were not properly served.
Not knowing how far each concept was developed, $5,000 could be high or it could be low. I typically do 2-3 concepts (plans only - maybe a couple of elevations if the plan is set) for about $2-$3K. I use a pretty intense process that leads to quick decisions. (Services are based typically on an hourly rate.... we estimate the time needed and multiple by our hourly rate. As time goes by, you can to a point where you know the fee for similar project and just go from there)
You need to call this architect - or have your attorney send them a "nice little" letter. You should not feel inhibited in asking for a partial refund. (start with a full and settle for partial). However, the more time passes the more unlikily this will occur. If this happened in the last month - get moving. If it happened longer - then its over. The architect no longer has that money - its been spent on supplies, salaries, insurance, and so on.
The next thing you can do is contact the local BBB.
Now not to be critical - but ask yourself if you really did your due diligence before you hired this architect. Was he the only one you talked with, did you check his references (call past clients), did you go see his built work, did you check with the BBB, did you check online court records?
Unless this project was on the coast - which you say it wasn't (lake), then there should not be any special design requirements where you could not hire an architect near you to assist you in schematic design. Start anew and find someone close to home who is going to care if you aren't satifified. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
csintexas
millennium club
Joined: 06 Feb 2006
Posts: 1776
Location: USA
|
| Posted: Fri Nov 16, 2007 7:36 am Post subject: |
|
|
Did I miss something or does your original post not say that you gave them the boomerang plan to begin with?
So based on what I have read so far I assume you gave them this plan and said something like: "This is our idea but we are willing to consider something else."
At that point the architect should have said something like: "We are the architects here and we will decide what is best for you" -if that is how they want to work.
Based on phansfords comments this attitude may be more common than I suspect but I don't think it is reasonable for a client to just know that they won't have any say in the plans unless they are told upfront.
There is no one or three month time limit. It doesn't matter if they have spent the money already. If they deserve to be sued than sue them so that they will behave more responsibly next time.
_________________
Chris Stewart
Modern Texas Home Project |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
phansford
Joined: 18 Apr 2004
Posts: 534
Location: SW Ohio
|
| Posted: Fri Nov 16, 2007 10:44 am Post subject: |
|
|
It is not the prevalent attitude that architects will do what they want and ignore input from clients. Even Mr. Wright listened to this clients and his early work is as much influenced by his clients in Oak Park as it is to his own imagination. It's just pinheads who want to propagate these kinds of misnomers about architects - for whatever purpose that serves them.
Again - we don't know the other side of the story.
No one is talking about sueing anyone - its called negotiation. At $200 per hour for attorney fees, suing for $5,000 isn't a wise decision.
And time is a factor - because anyone is going to ask - "If this upset you, why didn't you tell us or come forward sooner."
Also - why pay the fee (in full or part) if you weren't happy. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
csintexas
millennium club
Joined: 06 Feb 2006
Posts: 1776
Location: USA
|
| Posted: Fri Nov 16, 2007 11:09 am Post subject: |
|
|
I just assumed that because you got your nose so bent out of shape because I work for people I don't completely agree with. (calling me a whore and all )
The original contract could talk about arbitration, and small claims court may be an option to at least recover some of the money otherwise I guess you can sue for more than the contract amount to recover expenses.
_________________
Chris Stewart
Modern Texas Home Project |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
phansford
Joined: 18 Apr 2004
Posts: 534
Location: SW Ohio
|
| Posted: Fri Nov 16, 2007 6:20 pm Post subject: |
|
|
Typically you can only sue for the amount of the contract. Unless permitted by the contract, you won't be able to cover "expenses" include attorney fees.
Chris - you have a passion for green, you need to put that in your work to whatever level you can. When you just don't because you can't "go all the way", then you only are untrue to yourself. In otherword, get what you can - you will be able to build on those experiences. A little green today - more green tomorrow. Hopefully you understand what I mean - I pushing you to push yourself. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
csintexas
millennium club
Joined: 06 Feb 2006
Posts: 1776
Location: USA
|
| Posted: Fri Nov 16, 2007 7:47 pm Post subject: |
|
|
What do you think I have been doing phansford? You can't tell by my website that I am doing what I can? It isn't easy to change peoples minds.
People just don't walk in the door and say "Please build us what ever kind of house you think is best for us."
Are architects all on pixie dust?
_________________
Chris Stewart
Modern Texas Home Project |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
phansford
Joined: 18 Apr 2004
Posts: 534
Location: SW Ohio
|
| Posted: Sat Nov 17, 2007 7:25 am Post subject: |
|
|
Chris - I am responding to your comment that you want to do a certain level of green and since your clients don't want to do it, you don't do anything towards green in your projects. Now maybe I miss read your comment.
| csintexas wrote: | | You could certainly incorporate green ideas into any house but to really design a house to be green (in my opinion) takes a full effort. |
ie - your client was 53 billion recessed lights - how do you design that system to be as green as possible. I am getting the impression that your opinion is - okay that's not green so screw it. I take the opposite approach - how can I do this to meet my clients expectations and the expectations I have for myself.
No pixie dust involved. You can't take the position that the client is always right - they aren't and architects are the professionals they come to for direction and advice. That doesn't mean we don't listen to our clients - but we show them the alternatives. If they chose not to listen - their bad.
And likewise, their unwillingness to question the architect gives you things like the Disney Concert Hall and MIT. - don't get me wrong - I like Gehry's work, but maybe he needs to listen to the people in the field. You should read about Wright's apprentices and how they overrode some of Wright's design ideas in the field to make them work properly.
Please stop reading the Fountainhead - its bullcrap. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
csintexas
millennium club
Joined: 06 Feb 2006
Posts: 1776
Location: USA
|
| Posted: Sat Nov 17, 2007 8:43 am Post subject: |
|
|
I'm a residential designer. I usually don't have any control over the lighting system other than to draw light symbols on a piece of paper and tell the owner that recess lights will decrease the efficiency and add to the cost, etc.. I offered to show them alternatives and they where not interested.
On my modern Texas home project, I am acting more in the role of an architect and my clients are more in line with my views.
Naturally the latter is the more desirable situation to be in but as long as the former is the way most houses are designed I can only do what I can do and try to keep some detachment from my personal views. (or go work in a rock quarry)
It's hard enough to get people to think about energy efficiency at all. When you start saying things like "the USA consumes about 50% too many resources" You have lost about 98.5% of all Americans.
At least Wright occasionally pushed useful technology. The only technology Gehry is pushing is computer fabrication of extremely complex structures.
Both are fine examples of art being equal or more important than function which I have no respect for. At least in his latter years Wright seemed to have started getting the right idea with the usonian house.
I haven't read Fountainhead, or even heard of it till now. Just read the synopsis here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Fountainhead
I can't figure out what it has to do with me. Both Roark and Keating seem pathetic.
_________________
Chris Stewart
Modern Texas Home Project |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
phansford
Joined: 18 Apr 2004
Posts: 534
Location: SW Ohio
|
| Posted: Sat Nov 17, 2007 2:31 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| csintexas wrote: | | I'm a residential designer. I usually don't have any control over the lighting system other than to draw light symbols on a piece of paper and tell the owner that recess lights will decrease the efficiency and add to the cost, etc.. I offered to show them alternatives and they where not interested. |
Its the same for most architects doing residential. The electrical contractor will be given more input than us. Go figure.
So like you said, talk alternative, then move on.
| csintexas wrote: | At least Wright occasionally pushed useful technology. The only technology Gehry is pushing is computer fabrication of extremely complex structures.
Both are fine examples of art being equal or more important than function which I have no respect for. At least in his latter years Wright seemed to have started getting the right idea with the usonian house. |
You need to read more about Wright. He wasn't as head strong as people make out. His Oak Park days were his best and historically speaking, the most important work. You need to see that early stuff - plan a trip to Chicago. Spend a day in Oak Park. The best books on Wright are rarely written by the apprentices. Read Hitchcock's book and actually Taufel's Apprentice to Genius (only apprentice who is critical at times in his writing). The local historical society in Oak Park has a real good little book on Wright's relationships with the other progressive thinkers in Oak Park and how Oak Park society freed him.
| csintexas wrote: | I haven't read Fountainhead, or even heard of it till now. Just read the synopsis here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Fountainhead
I can't figure out what it has to do with me. Both Roark and Keating seem pathetic. |
It has nothing to do with you, except many people think that Roark is what all architects aspire to be - its bullcrap. The point being that many people after reading the Fountainhead or seen a late interview with Wright want to think all architects are prima donnas or aroggant (only when I need to be  ). I have actually been to a Gehry lecture - he is a very humble person while someone like Stanley Tigerman can be full of himself. Alot of this is public image. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
csintexas
millennium club
Joined: 06 Feb 2006
Posts: 1776
Location: USA
|
| Posted: Sat Nov 17, 2007 4:47 pm Post subject: |
|
|
move on -I agree
I've seen Wrights early work, I like is latter stuff much better. It was far to formal and stuffy to me but that's just my taste.
I never said the average architect wasn't a good person, I just haven't been that impressed with the ones I meet on the web most of the time. (although you seem OK to me)
As far as Gehry goes, I didn't say I wouldn't go fish'en with the man, just that his work stinks.
I'm just saying that in this case I don't think this company did a good job. According to what I have read so far they did not adequately explain their process. And I can't imagine any way that they could have and still be at this point. I think they where irresponsible.
_________________
Chris Stewart
Modern Texas Home Project |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
usarender
millennium club
Joined: 01 May 2004
Posts: 1258
Location: San Diego, Ca
|
| Posted: Wed Nov 21, 2007 5:48 pm Post subject: It takes special abilities to listen to the client |
|
|
There are architects who like to do things different and work with unusual clients and designs. This can be a fun experience. Being able to listen to the client and incorporate his feelings, wishes and desires takes much patience and understanding. It is not all architects who have this patience needed to work on these types of projects.
Mr. Nelson
Architectural Art USA
Architectural Design
Residential Design
Architectural Animations
Interior Design
Inventor, Scientist, Artist, Poet, Writer.
Modern Residential Design |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
John Henry Architect
Joined: 16 Jun 2006
Posts: 32
Location: Orlando, Florida
|
| Posted: Wed Nov 28, 2007 2:12 am Post subject: Green |
|
|
Chris, you seem smitten by the Green bug. Which is very good in fact.
Of course as Phansford mentioned, we have been all taught to design Green in school (before that terminology came about), but when in the 'real' world, and depending on what part of the planet you have your practice, Green might not be that important or relevant for various reasons.
If energy costs do not factor much into construction and lifecycle (see outrageous work in U.A.E such as the indoor ski sports center and other glass buildings with large exposure to elements vs. usable square footage, etc.) then Green means nothing.
If you wish to industrialize as quickly as possible in order to maintain a large population, as in China, then Green is not discussed.
U.S. builders construct the least expensive houses on speculation to allow the maximum sales. Energy efficient or Green producst may end up being options. Will a first time homebuyer opt for Green? Probably not.
Unless you are planning to live in your house for many years, the cost of even thinking green becomes prohibitive.
If you are in a society where job security is slim and you have to move from one city to another, then investing in Green is foolish.
Some people feel that 'the way we have been doing it for years is fine' and don't want to rock the boat or investigate further.
For many of us the technology of Green is changing, the LEED system is insane to follow, and unless we are paid higher fees to do the proper research, the effort is not worth it.
With diplomas in hand we leave the university thinking about energy efficiency but look at the typical subdvision where we design most of our homes.
A rectangular house should face the widest section facing south and it should be ideally on the side where the family can enjoy their small back yard -- this is for the North American zone of building. Only about 20-30% of homes can be built in this way in a typical subdivision layout. So we have lost the advantage of proper solar orientation. How about natural ventilation? Well, now we will need artificial means of cooling and heating for the other 70% whose windows do not face the prevailing breezes. The merchant builder ignores the specialty case and goes for the 70% norm/design resulting in the generic plan.
Do you know how ridiculous a standard vernacular traditional neighborhood would look if architects demanded that solar orientation be 'proper'? I went through this exercise at TexasA&M. The road network was equally crazy in order to achieve this and if you forced the proper model onto the typical subdivision network the houses would appear nutball with backwards entries, back yards in the front setback, etc.
So we have lost the first and most important volley in the typical subdivision. Guess why we have Owen-Corning insulation?? The only way to properly orient a house to solar, wind, and views is to build on a larger tract of land. Out in the country. (Of course these homes win all the architectural awards in the slick consumer glossies. Show me some that win in the typical subdivision -- outside of the trade magazines)
Let's talk about plan geometry.
Look online at home plans from 4-9,000 Sf.
They have planitis insanus geometry. Plan hacks have to show the most twisted angular floor plans on first schematic review in order to wow their clients. In fact if every curve and angle is not used, then they feel they have not advanced their profession or are doing a mediocre job.
Take a look at a Palladian plan. Boxy but good.
Which comes to another energy efficient point: Minimum reentrant angles in plan in order to maximize efficiency in energy use -- and by the way: cost of construction. Isn't that thinking Green?
If you have a plan that is meandering all over the place, the roof lines are going to go crazy, hip and valley intersections result in higher risk of envelope penetration by weather, long term maintenance costs rise, etc.
Boxy but good renaissance style is the most energy efficient.
Let's talk about windows. More wall than glass is best. A la 1400's.
Thicker walls with enegy mass and insulation better than thinner walls.
But no one wants boxy houses. The public loves the curves and angles and the streetscapes are more individualistic -- if each buyer can point to a unique elevation that is exclusively theirs.
So we are fighting a front on many levels.
Which is not to say give up, but to do what is best and possible in each case.
++++++++++++++++++
The best Green building approach is not to build anything at all.
And if you build, you should do it on site with what you have. Any importing of materials from anywhere creates pollution of all types. The subs should camp out right there. Mud and timber huts, if you are lucky, are the Greenest solutions.
Better to create infill and reduce or eliminate the gross area and natural environment we chew up in greenfield development than to do anything else. How can you sleep otherwise or even build a free standing house anywhere!?
Our problem in the US is that we have depended on cheap energy to fuel a lifestyle perpetuated by Modernist zoning which separates live/work/play apart from each other and creates large swaths of nothingness and right of way that would be inconceivable in other countries.
_________________
John Henry AIA, NCARB
www.FloridArchitect.com
www.DreamHomeDesignUSA.com
www.EuroDesignVIP.com |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
blogger
del.icio.us
digg
slashdot
