Architect without the satisfaction

October 14, 2009 9:16 PM

Several house structural changes planned but due to finances, work will done as money becomes available (probably spanning 10+ years). Would an architect be interested in this kind of project? How would s/he determine fee?

This summer, we bought a house in the school district we wanted but due to local prices, it's old and quite dated (ginormous, ear-splitting, wooden doorbell that rings in 25+ tunes (including Green Sleeves) anyone?) We've already made all the basic inexpensive cosmetic changes we can (taking down wallpaper and painting) but I hate to spend real money on items in rooms I know we want to completely re-do in a few years. Example, why tile a kitchen when I know I want to take out one of the walls? Would a residential architect be willing to draft plans for a house that won't be completed for many, many years? Also, how would an architect calculate her/his fee for this project since, I assume, s/he will want to be paid for the plans rather than base it on a percentage of the cost of the completed project?
Thanks for any help you can give.

posted by notcomputersavvy06 to home & garden (6 answers total)

These days, most people working in any kind of construction-related field, architects included, will take any work they can get, and may be more understanding than usual about people who don't have the scratch to do everything at once and can't get a loan. Hey, at least you're a warm body with a checkbook, willing to write a check for some amount of money. Beggars can't be choosers.

It seems like it can't hurt you to ask around your area to get the names of local architects who might be willing to work out a deal with you. A lot of architects are solo-practitioner types who really dictate their own terms and if they want to work with you on a project, they ought to be willing to come up with a way for you to pay them that isn't too offensive to either party.
posted by crinklebat at 9:51 PM on October 14, 2009

when we remodelled our home, we paid our architect a fee for the plans based on time spent (I don't remember if he quoted a fix fee or a not-to-exceed amount) In either case, it didn't matter to him to him how quickly we did the work since he had already done his job and been paid for it.
posted by metahawk at 10:59 PM on October 14, 2009

These days, most people working in any kind of construction-related field, architects included, will take any work they can get, and may be more understanding than usual about people who don't have the scratch to do everything at once and can't get a loan. Hey, at least you're a warm body with a checkbook, willing to write a check for some amount of money. Beggars can't be choosers.

Ba-ding! This is pretty much correct. I work at an architecture firm, and I'm quite certain we'd take this job right now if it was offered to us and the terms were alright. You can almost certainly find a residential architect to do this kind of thing, and probably wouldn't have a hard time finding someone even if the economy wasn't the way it is, although you'd probably be looking at smaller firms.

when we remodelled our home, we paid our architect a fee for the plans based on time spent (I don't remember if he quoted a fix fee or a not-to-exceed amount) In either case, it didn't matter to him to him how quickly we did the work since he had already done his job and been paid for it.

A firm I used to work for had two ways of structuring contracts, and we pretty much left the decision to the owner. We would either do a job on an hourly basis, or as a percentage of estimated construction costs. For that firm, you'd probably end up as an hourly client, where you'd get an invoice of the hours spent on the project each month by whoever's working on it, a description of what tasks they did, and their hourly rate. It's entirely possible that if you knew what you wanted to do ahead of time, you could find someone to draw plans at a fixed fee, but don't expect them to be too happy if you start making changes once work starts, or at least expect them to draw up another contract for you to make the changes you're requesting. Generally, the more decisions you can make ahead of time (without changing them), the cheaper your project will be, at least as far as the architect's bill. If you do get a fixed fee contract, for the architect it'll basically be similar to an hourly project, but they'll have just figured out how many hours they're going to spend on it ahead of time. Having done a number of buildings before, they'll be able to easily quantify for themselves how much time it'll take for them to complete your drawings, and calculate your fee accordingly.

Some major wrinkles in trying to spread a project out over ten years are that permits will expire, so you won't be able to really get plans for the whole thing in one shot, although it will be beneficial to have a "master plan" that you're working towards at the completion of the project, and that the building codes will change so that plans that meet code today will not necessarily meet code in even 3 years, although single-family residential requirements probably won't change too much. It will generally save you money on construction if you have an architect figure out the master plan ahead of time, so that you're not putting in stuff that you're going to take out again (especially stuff that's expensive to redo, like plumbing). As such, you'll probably want to do the project in phases, with each phase performed under a separate permit. Your architect should be able to help you figure out the most economical way to split the project up given your budget at any one time. There are also just different phases of design just in standard practice in architecture, and an architect can alot different fees to be involved in each of them - sometimes architects are let go once permits are pulled, which means they don't get paid for the Construction Administration part of the job.
posted by LionIndex at 11:27 PM on October 14, 2009

You can pay an architect a flat fee to draw up a master plan for everything you want done and then perhaps pay him/her an hourly consulting fee to work with your contractor(s) as you get each job done.

As long as the work you want done can be done in sections, as opposed to something that might require large structural changes to the entire house, this should be feasible.

Call around, talk to different architects. Explain what you have in mind. They'll tell you if they don't want to take the job or not. As others have said, a lot of them are desperate for work these days.
posted by bondcliff at 6:16 AM on October 15, 2009

yeah, there are a variety of services here that you may want an architect for:

- design: this is the easy part. the architect works with you to design the house of your dreams. fun, right?
- permitting: the architect can submit your plans to the city for approval prior to doing the work. a building permit is only valid for a limited period of time, so you only want to get work permitted if it is a scope that you expect to be able to pay for and complete in that time frame.
- bidding: an architect can help you identify a general contractor and negotiate pricing.
- construction administration: an architect can monitor construction progress and ensure that the design is properly executed.

You can retain an architect for any or all of these services. Best way to determine your needs is to go talk to one. As previously noted, contract types and rates depend on the firm, but you can probably find something that will work for you. Also, depending on your local jurisdiction, certain types of residential construction do not require a licensed architect's stamp. This can save you a bit of money, so something to consider.
posted by Chris4d at 9:22 AM on October 15, 2009

Thank you. Extremely helpful information!
posted by notcomputersavvy06 at 5:01 AM on October 16, 2009