Thankfully clients like you don't want to work with architects like us...(should admit now that I drive a very mean pencil....back-dated, running 8 inchers at the back and a tuned 3.6!!!)
We have an agreed cost to do an agreed amount of work....change the amount of work we do (because you the client change your mind...discover that somebody is not going to play ball with your scheme) and we will change the amount we charge.

You get what you pay for...

Disclosure: I am also an architect.

Can you really fault him for trying to do a good job? It's the job of architects to pay attention to details and inevitably this means getting caught up in what to the unsophisticated among us might be dismissed as "unimportant" things, because at the end of the day it's the details and those "little things" that create the value.

Have you ever been in an architect-designed house? You can tell right away versus a typical, contractor-designed one. I'm not bagging on contractors here (there are a lot of good ones) but typically a contractor-designed house is CLEARLY built with economy of construction as the driving factor (then they slap some expensive finish materials and granite counters in it and expect to charge a premium). This is very different than designing in a holistic manner and trying to get all the little pieces to work in harmony to create a space that is beautiful, efficient, functional and (most importantly) what you the client are going to ultimately be happy to live with.

That said, is his attention to this particular element causing a delay? Are you on a lump-sum fee arrangement or an hourly/per-diem? If you're paying hourly rate I think you have a reason to take charge and say "it's going to be this - I'm directing you to go with it" and be done with it so the meter doesn't run up. If it's a lump sum agreement or a not-to-exceed and it's not impacting schedule, why fret it? Let him do his thing.

And a word to the wise, in a "not to exceed" arrangement, the "not to exceed" amount will be your bill. And that's before extra services. ;)

There has to be some give and take here... There's a reason that architects build in extra services language and may appear to have high fees, but once you've been on this side and dealt with a PITA client who changed their mind every three days requiring a redesign of half the structure (including coordinating all structural/MEP/fire protection/etc. consultant work) an expected that it was a base service, you'll understand why. At some point there needs to be a clearly spelled-out understanding of "your base service includes X and ONE redesign and THREE site visits.." or whatever, otherwise either you or the architect ends up getting screwed. One reason CA requires written contracts (several other states do to prior to rendering any services).

YMMV. Best of luck. Shoot me a PM if you'd like to discuss more.

Oh yes you do. Even in the residential projects. I have a pretty good eye for design, but its always good to leave that to the big boys to tell me what to do. Down to the tiny details. Many of those tiny details fall on my shoulders. My job is to catch some of their mistakes and make sure the owners get what they pay for. A sound design and a well build house all within a certain budget.

I am not a big fan of spending extra money on aesthetics with public projects. Private jobs on the other hand, let spend as much as you can because its your money.

Before an owner hires an architect:
-Consider the layout of the property and what views are needed from different rooms. More windows will equal more cost and heat loss.
-There are plenty of online blueprints to base a new project off of. Using free Google Sketchup, you can quickly make these into boxes and create a "walk through" movie of 3D designs to determine what the "feel" of the place will be.
-Take into consideration different designs will require different levels of material costs(eg large rooms equals beefier structures). Moving an interior wall may mean moving a foundation wall and redesigning a roof.
-Research major costs such as kitchen and bathroom fixtures.
-Talk, plan, and talk some more. Decide.
-Wait.
-Talk, plan, and talk some more. Decide, and put it in writing.

I couldn't agree with you more, but public project is a whole different ball of wax. Can one fire a architect or general in the middle of a project in those type of jobs?

I have nothing against architects...

But with an "open" language contract it is easy to run up a big bill.

I was having an office building renovated. The architect billed by the hour. In order to design some interior office space he felt the need to make multiple 3-d models, animations, etc. He had some expensive software, and clearly liked playing with it. I didn't need/ask for that.

When I was having a department type store redesigned, I put a cap on the architect costs. He picked a number he was comfortable with, and we both agreed. In the beginning he was hiring some subs/etc to do this "modelling" again. He quickly figured out he was going to hit his budget real fast and then he would be working for "free." He then switched to simple cad, and all was fine. Building and product were just fine.

Its no different than working with a plumber/electrician/etc. If you offer to pay for time and materials, you will likely get screwed. Its human nature. Spell out the cost up front.

But you do have something against them...

I am amazed that as a Client doing what would appear to be a large but straight forward job you would even consider going a per hour route. Defining what you want the architect to do, what you want him to deliver in order to get your approvals/ contractor prices, before the guy starts the clock is the basic first step. Get it right and the scenario you describe simply does not occur.. unless you skip on your responsibility to define what you want the architect to do...

if you seek some hired pencil to draw up a scheme then its one approach...
if you want to tap into any creative skills that the designer may have its another...

My guess is that you (and the architect) skipped on this stage and the definition of what you wanted your architect to do (drawings etc) in order to deliver the project was too vague.. so he made a song and dance about this; that and the other and rather than look closely at what you had omitted you blame the architect.

Fees are real simple...if both parties agree to the same rules...we work with clients in order to establish an initial cost of construction.. we work out what we think it will cost us to deliver the desired project ( team numbers/ complexity of the brief/ programme etc) ....and agree on that basis an overall figure. Within that we agree what deliverables are expected and milestones. If the milestones shift for reasons that our not ours or the brief changes we expect our fee to alter to suit.

It would appear that in the first instance you wanted a hired pencil... yet the architect thought he was to be creative.. and it was not clear until the costs came back to you.
In the second you made it clear he was a hired pencil...and he agreed to use appropriate tools for the job you wanted....

Architects are not part of the 'risk' side of construction work. Clients who want to develop properties in order to increase value or income are the ones who take the risk and gain the profit. If clients want us to assume some of the risk we are always happy to do so until they realise that our shared of the profit will have to be greater than theirs...

Yes we do expect our time and materials to be paid for....and for us the only time we look to a fixed fee is once the design s resolved to the Clients' agreement, the costs are agreed and a variation process agreed, planning consents are in place and the client has agreed a project programme and we have agreed our future role.

As with any work to contract you spell out what you want the person to do.. for what cost and for what deadline. As a Client its what you need to do.. not assume that the architect will see things exactly the way you do....

Are we ever going to find out what this tunnel is for?

Yeah! Dammit. :mad:

I know he worked on the Devil's Slide tunnel at one time. Don't know if he still is. (It's a tunnel on Highway 1 between Pacifica and Montara)

The only other tunnel project in the Bay Area is the Caldecott tunnel between Oakland and Walnut Creek. But they just started it and I don't think they'd be that concerned with the final colors of concrete at the portals yet.

Vash must have forgotten he started this post and is, therefore, leaving us in the dark, so to speak.

oh..sorry.

now the arch wont call me back..hahha

it is the devil's slide tunnel. the architect is a state arch. he thinks we crap hundred dollar bills. :)

Reform the state pension scheme and there'll be money to beautify the tunnel. Just joking, Vash. You remember my wife is also a state employee.

This thread is going to get moved to PARF in no time.:D

http://forums.pelicanparts.com/uploa...1295633002.jpg

Democratic National Convention?

OMG..i am gonna print that, and give it to some miners..

That is just too funny