Our problem is that we are mostly stuck in a traditional business model for getting our services out there. Also the plan books have degraded our worth, yet they also allow average people to afford better designs. Unfortunately, the vast majority of these designs are terrible to say the least. Now for those of you who think in absolutist, binary ways, I didn't say ALL. The economic principle of Substitution essentially states that the cheapest "equivalent" product will have the widest distribution. Walmart exemplifies this business strategy. When these plans are cheapened to $500-$2000 dollars, this becomes the cheap made Chinese stereo being distributed the Walmarts of the Building Industry by the millions (1.6 million per year) and therefore handmade products like the Rolls Royce, that may be considered top shelf, are ignored by the average person because it's out of their range. What's interesting is that BMW and Mercedes used to be the unobtainable cars that only the wealthy could afford. I can't drive more than a 1/2 mile through Atlanta without seeing one of each today. These higher end products with a higher perceived level of quality become very desirable and widely distributed when the prices come down enough to compete with the rest of the average cars. Your low end Honda may be much cheaper than the low end BMW, but your low end BMW is competitive with a high end Honda.
I've preached and preached about the value of working directly with builders. When you get into a rhythm with a builder, you no longer need all the paranoid, cover your butt documentation because you know how they build window openings, you know what products their subs are comfortable using, you can streamline your process and avoid exhaustive site visits. You can avoid the problems that always arise in traditional service delivery. When we design a house and send the client out into the world to have 3 or more unknown builders bid on it, we have no idea what we're going to get. When we specify the newest Rolls Royce flashing/ waterproofing system that the lunch and learn product rep sold us on that the winning bidder has never used, we put them in a position of having to use a new product for the first time and warrantee the assembly. I would rather use the system the builder has had success with time and time again than to use a new product that I was told is the best, costs 10x more, and can't even be seen anyway. We often get caught up in "making things better" by experimenting. When it comes to making better designs more affordable, you have to pick your battles and really understand the theory of more bang for the buck, not more buck for the bang.
We often bad mouth builders for being incompetent boobs that are out to destroy the quality of our buildings with cheap, negligent installations. Sure, many builders are cheap and negligent, but I don't know a single builder that wants to intentionally sabotage an assembly that they have to warrantee. When I negotiate product inclusions, assembly construction, etc. I'm always looking at what their subs are currently using and how successful those assemblies have been in the past. After 10 projects working with the same builder, you and the builder are pushing the envelope in ways that reduce liability for both, they prevent cost overruns/ change orders, they prevent client relationships from getting ugly and thus reduce lawsuits. After over 200 built projects, I've never had a single threat of a lawsuit. This is much like a design build relationship without the liability of being responsible for both Design and Installation.
Stereotypes exist for a reason. We can't sit here and whine about not being loved and respected if we keep repeating the same business practices. We all want to put pictures of the next Rolls Royce in our portfolio and at the same time wonder why regular people don't want to spend 1/2 their annual salary on an instruction manual. We put ourselves in this corner and we're not going to convince people to change their budgets or what they are willing to pay for our services until we can figure out how to prove to them our ability to design better buildings can be affordable, obtainable, and valuable to them. People have to get loans, which will be based on an APPRAISAL! When appraisals are based on the lousy houses that just sold in your area, houses with construction budgets that included using a $1500 plan used for the 100th time (i.e. $15 design), then the value of design is practically nothing in the eyes of the appraiser and thus the bank. If we could prove our designs do add value, if we could prove people are willing to pay more for a better designed building, then the appraisers would see us more favorably. We can't force them to automatically give us more value. We have to prove it with sales. Real Estate Appraisers go by the same bible as the Appraisers from Antiques Road Show and it's called the Uniform Standards for Professional Appraisal Practice. We are not going to change the fundamental mindset of basing value on current sales in the open market. Our custom houses are NOT sales, so we need to create better houses that do qualify as sales if we want to raise our value. We must custom design speculative houses, make sure they sell for more, and then we can prove our better designs sell for more. We have been designing so many houses for homeowners that are so specific to that person that the majority of people may not like living in them. When I design spec houses in different neighborhoods as close as 2 miles apart, the demographic buying in those areas often have different needs. We are notorious for being out of touch with the general needs of each location and expect people to love the aesthetics over the functionality. I've learned some hard lessons about ignoring what people need, but now my designs tend to sell for more and much quicker. Now that's valuable to a builder and a prospective homeowner!
-------------------------------------------
Eric Rawlings AIA
Owner
Rawlings Design, Inc.
Decatur GA
-------------------------------------------
Original Message:
Sent: 12-10-2012 08:13
From: Edward Cazayoux
Subject: Detailing houses
The attitude of people about architects is well presented in this video - "Its not rocket science". Too bad, but that is the corner we (or the AIA) have backed ourselves into.
http://faircompanies.com/videos/view/diy-home-for-less-than-3500/
-------------------------------------------
Edward Cazayoux FAIA
Principal/architect
EnvironMental Design
Breaux Bridge LA
-------------------------------------------
Original Message:
Sent: 12-07-2012 08:09
From: Rand Soellner
Subject: Detailing houses
Yes sir. Agreed. Educating clients as to the Value of an Architect's services. We are not a commodity. The AIA and other organizations should have continuous public awareness programs that inform (and hopefully delight) the public about what we do and why anyone would want an architect to design their home.
-------------------------------------------
Rand Soellner AIA
Architect/Owner/Principal
Home Architects
Cashiers NC
-------------------------------------------
Original Message:
Sent: 12-06-2012 08:57
From: Robert Moore
Subject: Detailing houses
Rand
I believe your final comment goes back to your quote from Dennis Hall, FAIA. At some point the liability will fall on the design professional.A root problem is the negotiation of fees that allow us sufficient resources(time and money) to properly design and detail the project. That means working smarter when we have a limited design budget but it also means aligning a clients expectations to the reality of what they are paying you (you get what you pay for). We need to make our client realize that fee paid to design professionals is the best Return on Investment they can make.
-------------------------------------------
Robert Moore AIA
Robert E. Moore Architect
Monroe NC
-------------------------------------------
Original Message:
Sent: 12-06-2012 08:08
From: Rand Soellner
Subject: Detailing houses
Hi Don, Whatever works best for you. Watch out for implied liability on your part for contractor changes that you did not approve. Classic case in point: GC switching to cheaper asphalt water-RESISTIVE barrier below grade around basement walls, as opposed to your own superior polyurethane waterPROOF barrier, then having the client come back on you, because the basement leaks. Sounds like you are monitoring such unapproved substitutions, which at first, might make the client happy to be saving a few bucks, but then later comes back to haunt them.
-------------------------------------------
Rand Soellner AIA
Architect/Owner/Principal
Home Architects
Cashiers NC
-------------------------------------------