Architectural and design fees, reasonable quote?
 

I've engaged an architect to provide all necessary design and construction drawings for a simple single story room addition.
We've been given a quote for $6k.
That includes structural engineering review, HVAC, electrical design, etc.
Everything necessary to apply for a permit. It also includes any necessary changes specified in the permitting process.

Sounds reasonable to me, but I've never dipped my toe into this pool before.
Thoughts?

I paid $2k for a stock set of house plans. Changes were extra and it didn’t include structural, electrical, HVAC or anything else.

So, $6k seems reasonable.

Depending on the area, size of the addition and difficulty in obtaining permits (historical/beach/seismic/hillside zones) but I would ask what they are charging by the hour: $75 for a normal addition in CA is low end, $125 is high and if your boy has a name, $300.

48 hours at $125 seems like a long time for a room addition to existing structure. If you are going up and footings need to be strengthened below, it is mathematics and the calcs could add enough time to make the $6k about right.

Just remember, an Architect will give you a beautiful space. an engineer will make a space that works properly.

Why? Architects get an Arts (BA, MA etc) degree while engineers get a Science (BS, MS) degree.

Seems reasonable to me.

Give an architect a blank sheet of paper and get a great design. Ask how much, get a blank look.

Just for comparison I’m in the middle of a major remodel and architectural design and planning is quoted to be around $25-30k in central California coast. This does not include permits/fees. This will include adding about 1200sqft and reworking most of our existing 2300sqft.

Thanks everyone for the insight.
I figured it was OK but as a rookie I'm overly cautious.
Plus it hurts like heck when I have to pry open my wallet ;)

I added on to my house, a stairwell, 2 bedrooms, redesign of main floor and basement, baths, powder room,...pretty large renovation, in all, added 1600 sq ft and paid $5K for the architect to design.

:DYou cheap bastard Make your wife happy, isn't that worth a lot more?

5-6 k seems to be about right. One tip I have for you, Dean is to pay a small fee or deposit up front for his work on the preliminary design for your approval(demand this). Upon approval, don't pay the architect (this is if I am involved with the project from the beginning, holding my client's hand through) until he gets the plans stamped or approved by the city. Next step is to have your builder review, pay the big bucks and start. I know many architect hate this because they need a draw on large projects to pay bills but on an addition like yours, it should work out just fine. Ok architects, I have my flame suit on.

My father was a builder who became an architect. Spent the first part of my life building homes. I was also a draftsman for many years. 75% of my job was fixing architectural mistakes.

Make sure the architect knows what the f*** he's doing. Get a builder and engineer to review it before paying the architect.

Everyone makes mistakes, trying to catch it before money is exchanged is the key. I seen numerous occasions where the lazy engineer that never show up at the job site (99% of them do not) and go off the architect's plans. Architect do not like to bust open ceilings to verify rafter runs. Engineer follow suit and spec Paralams that run along the length of ceiling rafters pouring unnecessary footings serving no purpose yet inspectors will demand install or else they wouldn't sign off on the rough framing. Someone screw up and the owner pays the price.

Sounds high to me for a simple addition.

I wasted $750 on trying to support a sagging cantilever. (edit: not Kach..)
He had CAD files, photos, everything.
The resulting design did stay invisible as the client desired, and technically fulfilled our agreement, but it was structurally useless.
He thought a couple of long 2x10's perpendicular to the rim joist would function as load support.
SMH. It dd not take a structural engineer to know that was a garbage design.

Per the builder, I ended up with a mighty tied in glue lam across the entire expanse resting on 2x6 posts on top of protected 4' concrete footings.
(2x8 would have been even better. but there was no room.)
Simple and strong.

When you are looking over the design....imagine actually using it.

Is there enough light, or would bigger window add a security/privacy problem?
Is the doorway big enough for a wheelchair and couches or whatnot?
Do you want it separated from the main house or connected with big french doors for example?
What are the water drains going to go through to get to the main?
Is the space flexible enough to be used for other things in the future? (i.e. study vs workshop vs guest room)

A qualified builder does designs around here. Includes dealing with the codes department. It's not rocket science - it's more like brushing your teeth. If you want something to brag about and fancy, that is different, but a simple first floor addition for a $6k design fee? Must be a big addition.

Totally untrue.

I have a BS (undergrad) and a M.Arch. (grad). A B.Arch or M.Arch is a different degree than either a B.A. or M.A. I had had to take calculus-based physics, materials science and statics courses, as well as extensive coursework in structures - on top of design studios, building science, etc.

A good architect knows enough about engineering to work with their engineering consultants and not just kick stuff to them. Often we hire them to shed liability, not because we can’t necessarily do something. Also consider that some systems (especially mechanical) are getting so complicated now due to energy codes that you really need a specialist to delve into them and ensure you’ll get something that’ll comply at the end of the day and “own” that code compliance on their stamp. Sometimes it’s to make sure a project gets done in a certain time (designing structural systems, mechanical systems, etc. takes away a lot of time from the overall design effort - it’s easier and more efficient go hire a specialist and coordinate it). A design team is an orchestra and the architect is the conductor.

Some states allow a much easier path to architectural licensure than I had but even so, an architect must understand the fundamentals of ALL building disciplines to be considered competent. There’s no way around it, even with today’s “dumbed down” version of the ARE...

To suggest that architects don’t understand functionality or engineering is disingenuous and asinine.

Normally true, but you haven't met my ex-sister's husband........he passed the test eventually (sat for it as a grandfathered Chem E) but had no clue.

In fairness I have dealt with a few colleagues who had their licenses and wondered “how on earth?” I guess some people just get lucky and others work for it.

Even if someone is a licensed professional, if they don’t have the skills and base level of competence that credential is supposed to represent then they likely won’t go far or last too long in practice.

Sorry for my earlier grouchiness but I get intensely annoyed when people think all architects do is make pretty things. Yes we do that too but there’s an awful lot more to it. Professional training for architecture is every bit as long and difficult as for medicine or law. In most cases it’s 5-8 years of formal education plus 6-8 years of apprenticeship (a few exceptions but that’s typical).

Nothing against engineers either - I work with them every day and the success of my projects is every bit dependent on them as my own skills and abilities too. You rise or fall as a team, ultimately - at least on the big jobs.

It like everything else, having a basic understanding of how thing work in general goes a long way. Some people are in it just for the beauty of the building and really have no interest on any structural aspect of a building. They should be interior designers instead of architects. I have done work for some brilliant folks and some just want to get by producing drawings to get past the city and really have no business in the architecture. There are many of those in every businesses or trades.

you get what you pay for. I have been an architect for over 40 years. Provide a client a reasonable fee to do a complete project and most want it for 10% of the real number. So you get what you get, a 10% job or someone who knows 10%v of what they need to know. Potential client was stated their project scope which would have cost north of $800k to build. Gave them a favorable fee. They went with the cheaper person and have now spent well over $200k making it right. Whose to blame? Client for being unrealistic or contractor who did not understand the full scope?

Check references, interview more than one and figure out who you can live with for a year.

New twist: I asked for further clarification in writing of what is included.
What is NOT included is structural engineering and energy consultant and design fees.
So .... I'm going to think about it ...

Competition is a good thing but what I'm hearing is, everybody and their dog in So Cal is into home improvement right now so people in that biddness have the luxury of prioritizing what projects they take on.
Nothing wrong with that, but maybe this can be a next year or the year after thing.
We'll see what the next guy says.

Yes. I am speaking to gross generalities and I have known architects who wanted more than a pretty picture.

In my career as an engineer in an industrial setting, every time I have had an architect as the lead, it was trouble. Layout of equipment, routing of utilities, unique structural requirements, material and product flow seemed to take a back seat to a pleasing setting.

In the commercial setting, I have had better luck but still it was always a struggle to get some of the more engineered (mostly structural and mechanical) parts right.

As noted elsewhere in this thread, make sure you are getting what you need. For me, in an industrial setting negotiating code compliance with the AHJ, requires extensive knowledge of you process needs, basis of published codes requirements and a willingness to negotiate with the AHJ.

Again I know there are knowledgeable ones out there but they are outnumbered by the ones who dismiss the engineering as a secondary effort.

Waiting for a slowdown would be a good idea, not sure when that will be though.

One other thing to look out for is a reasonable quote and then lots of costly add on's. The quote I received for the structural engineering for this house was about $3k, similar to others, pretty straight forward ICF build, but once we started pouring concrete the engineers bills started rolling, nothing on the plans were changed, ended up closer to $10k, and not really possible to change engineers part way through.

I read that even Frank Lloyd Wright's "Water Lilies" office building was prone to water leaks.
(perhaps due soley to owner maintenance. IDK.)
His other buildings are exceptional.

I start looking for what is upstairs every time I see those modern "open-space" first floors with huge ceilings and heavy floors above..

The architect is put into a peculiar position when the the client says "I want it this way, make it happen."

That happens more than you might think!

Nothing wrong with that. I make most of my living doing that type of stuff. I posted some pic of a current job affect by CV19 with city refusing to accept drawings for review. Its open with many structural removed. Just make sure architect and engineer is on the same page and my expectation of them to be on the ball. That's where the big bucks starts.

I think what you’re referring could be summarized as there are designers and there are architects. The problems come when designers put too much stock in their own credentials and insist that their detailing is correct or sufficient when in reality it’s neither.

The most successful projects I’ve been on had a great designer, a great architect (different firm), great sub-consultants and most importantly a very knowledgeable client who understands what a successful project needs and is willing to pay for it.

One thing I have to say is residential construction is a mess without much rules to stick to. This I mean, guys grew up in the trenches can do it all not matter what it looks like at the end of the day. A bunch of hackers, same for those small time architects too. In a commercial or larger project settings, its a bit different. There are consequences. Lots of residential guys will just take a small lost and walk away until the get sue and still, nothing really happens. Its hard to find clients are willing to pay for good solid work or design. The real pros aren't interested in dealing with home homers. There's much better money to be made elsewhere on the larger jobs. With that said, there are a hand full of guys that are involved in residential side of the business that are real pros and do care but I found most aren't willing to pay for that service because the bottom feeders had trained them with their bottom feeding pricing. The illegals add to that and made it even worst. I thank goodness daily for those who screw the home owners. When I walk in, I am treated like royalty.

That’s true for architects too. A lot (like me) won’t touch residential work. Fickle, overly-opinionated, cheap owners, bottom-of-the-barrel contractors, etc. make it a “not worth it” game. Sure there are a few (very few) good jobs out there with good clients who can provide some really fun design opportunity but the high-end residential design field is absolutely saturated with designers all chasing those unicorns.

I’m perfectly content to do my “boring” government and commercial clients. They generally have reasonable budgets and pay on time even if I don’t get to play FLW too often. The challenges of pulling a team together to get something done on a big job is rewarding and satisfying too.

That was a good deal until you discovered that engineering and energy calcs were not included. 6K for a extension off the house on grade, on slab is ridiculous. Many years ago I used to produce those for 600. Things haven't risen in cost that much. What has gone over the top is structural engineering. Energy load calcs are plug and play for the most part, so expect hundreds, not thousands for that aspect.

I say this WRT a simple addition, not a glass house.

You must have some kind of complicated roof tie-in to trigger that kind of cost.

It looks like this problem is solved, I have a more reasonable quote that I am planning to approve.

For reference, here's an aerial view of what we're looking at.
IMO It's not really that big of a deal. Originally I thought it could all be done for under $60k, that may end up being low by $10 or 20k.
Kalifornia :rolleyes:

The red section is the proposed room addition.
http://forums.pelicanparts.com/uploa...1597765383.jpg

there is a breezeway now, so the roof section above it will have to be removed and rebuilt for a larger footprint.

Good news is, 2 of the 4 walls are existing.
Bad news: the existing slab will need to be ripped up and replaced with a new slab with better reinforcements for earthquakes and such.
And the new roof ties into existing. That's where most of the cost is.

Interesting enough, there's a similar house a few blocks away that had this modification done to it and it was up for sale a few months ago.
It sold in a weekend for what I considered crazy money, but the deal fell through and it went back on the market for a lower price and no one wants to touch it now.
Rumors are the modifications were never permitted and might have to be redone.

Buy it - and get a 2 for 1 deal with the architect/contractor! :D

I thought for 6k, that should include energy calc, and the engineering. My opinion is that, have the architect handle it all instead of looking for engineers on your own. Much easier on your sanity.

Sanity?
Does that cost extra?

BTW the wife says I'm just bored and looking for something to do.
Might be a little truth in that.

That house should be an easy fix if that's case. It may not have to be redone but proof the depth of footing and the framing is correct. Most of the time, the inspector may not even require the ceiling or roof ripped up. I like those, cheap but its risk you take. Worst case it to remove drywall, and fix bar wire job. Demo out the slab to proof there's sufficient rebar in it.

Get a copy of their permit on file.
[signed and inspected and authorized]

Just in case the local inspector decides to have a bad hair day.

One thing about connecting 2 structures that are only connected by an existing breezeway is the continuation of side wall sheathing. Your house may not be of an age where the exterior walls are covered by shear panel. Now it will be by at least 4 feet in each direction with additional hold downs installed over new beefed up footings.

And since that is a garage that you are connecting, the fire codes involved in the garage part will be substantial.

So, IOW, when you get the plans, you will see the impact on the existing structures. Their will be as much work going into existing as their will be new. It's crazy.

A few years ago my son wanted to add on to a 2 bed house near me. I told him to sell and move to a bigger house (4 bed) instead, which he did. He is way more ahead equity-wise on his current house than he would have been had he spent the money to add on.

There has been a slow and inexorable march towards retroactive code application in recent years. With each revision of the IBC it gets a little harder to touch “only” an addition and exempt / grandfather the main building... more and more things on the existing structure keep getting pulled in - accessibility upgrades, structural analysis, energy compliance... we’re fast heading to a point where it’s not worth doing additions and makes more sense to just demo and build anew. From a safety standpoint that makes sense and probably is the goal but economically (and artistically) its a steep price.

The longer one waits the harder it’ll be to make an addition or retrofit worthwhile... I imagine in 15-20 years it’ll be all but impossible.

Were's George (the Architect) when you need him?