Custom Residential Architects Network

Does this article cover all aspects of hiring/working with an architect?  Are any aspects of this piece inaccurate? Or is this useful educational material for potential clients? Let me know if this is quality content worthy of sharing with non-architect audiences.  

Hiring High End Residential Architects A Guide

le

Does this article cover all aspects of hiring/working with an architect?  Are any aspects of this piece inaccurate? Or is this useful educational material for potential clients? Let me know if this is quality content worthy of sharing with non-architect audiences.  

Hiring High End Residential Architects A Guide

le

Does this article cover all aspects of hiring/working with an architect?  Are any aspects of this piece inaccurate? Or is this useful educational material for potential clients? Let me know if this is quality content worthy of sharing with non-architect audiences.  

Hiring High End Residential Architects A Guide

le

My two cents - distribute this to non-architects and it will simply reinforce the idea that residential architecture is only for the monied. What does this say to the average homeowner who need help with a smaller project? Architects and architecture need to be seen as accessible, otherwise a lot of us are out of jobs. Everyone deserves good design. Something like this is going to make people shy away from hiring an architect.

Does this article cover all aspects of hiring/working with an architect?  Are any aspects of this piece inaccurate? Or is this useful educational material for potential clients? Let me know if this is quality content worthy of sharing with non-architect audiences.  

Hiring High End Residential Architects A Guide

le

I agree with the points Lee and Lawrence made and truly question the value of positioning architecture as an exclusive "high-end" service. Of course, there are clients who want that type of service, but I'm more concerned with the fact that as a profession, architects have completely turned over the design of most single family homes to general contractors and others who are not trained in architecture. Not because there isn't a need or we don't add value, but because (as outlined in the article) we focus on controlling and delivering an outcome, not on ideas, exploration and process. 

I agree with the beginning of the article that homes tell a story and each client and site is unique, but it's also entirely possible to work with clients only through the schematic design phase to help them tell their story and set the project up for success. Most mid-range, average single family residential clients can't afford to pay for an architect to manage the final outcome and clearly builders don't "need" our services, but clients can afford to pay for basic master planning and space planning services and value having support as they select and communicate with builders. 

I'm just very opposed to raising higher and higher barriers to people attaining our services and expecting home owners to come to us with a "clear vision" of what they want or expect them to reflect on the "quality of the natural light pouring into the room" - it's not a client's job to come to us "prepared" for our services. (Lee and Lawrence were more diplomatic, I found that section to be pretty obnoxious.)

The more we as architects erect these richly textured, soaringly insurmountable barriers between ourselves and the rest of the world, the more we marginalize ourselves and make the profession seem frivolous and irrelevant to most of the population. Meanwhile, everyday homeowners are left to fend for themselves and end up building houses where the kitchen and laundry spaces are poorly thought out, the mudroom is too small and the best access to the view is from the bathroom window because the house wasn't properly sited...  Or, they end up with an older home that has been "Franken-built" over the years and marks time through a variety of mis-matched remodels and additions. 

I don't think articles like this serve us architects well, but unfortunately I can't say it doesn't reflect the perception of what we do.

My two cents - distribute this to non-architects and it will simply reinforce the idea that residential architecture is only for the monied. What does this say to the average homeowner who need help with a smaller project? Architects and architecture need to be seen as accessible, otherwise a lot of us are out of jobs. Everyone deserves good design. Something like this is going to make people shy away from hiring an architect.

Does this article cover all aspects of hiring/working with an architect?  Are any aspects of this piece inaccurate? Or is this useful educational material for potential clients? Let me know if this is quality content worthy of sharing with non-architect audiences.  

Hiring High End Residential Architects A Guide

le

My last thoughts, so this is a conversation (one overdue),

So often we as people, not just architects, find ourselves ordering our lives into either-or situations. Two choices, or a binary is easier for our minds, perhaps.

All of the points made are valid, and we as architects, if we only hang with each other at the AIA, find ourselves unable to talk to basically everyone else. That's not good. The article, which was less bothersome to me, while seeing clearly the points made by others, doesn't lend itself to anyone other than the affluent who want a house that will someday appear in our glossy mags or Town & Country magazine. Whatever. There's a time and place for that.

I do like to control the process as I've seen without my control, there is no control for some builders. Clients get hurt. However, with good contractors, it's true that they don't "need" us. Some "want" us; I know that because I know them. It's this very conversation that has led me away from SFR work as I've lost patience with builder homes and the HGTV/DIY mindset. That's my problem, not anyone else's.

So what's the answer? How can we get out of our own way and ego and be more things to more people rather than only to this people group or that group?

It shouldn't be a choice of only this-or-that. Will the AIA support that? Will more architects support that? I think it's time we all do.

I agree with the points Lee and Lawrence made and truly question the value of positioning architecture as an exclusive "high-end" service. Of course, there are clients who want that type of service, but I'm more concerned with the fact that as a profession, architects have completely turned over the design of most single family homes to general contractors and others who are not trained in architecture. Not because there isn't a need or we don't add value, but because (as outlined in the article) we focus on controlling and delivering an outcome, not on ideas, exploration and process. 

I agree with the beginning of the article that homes tell a story and each client and site is unique, but it's also entirely possible to work with clients only through the schematic design phase to help them tell their story and set the project up for success. Most mid-range, average single family residential clients can't afford to pay for an architect to manage the final outcome and clearly builders don't "need" our services, but clients can afford to pay for basic master planning and space planning services and value having support as they select and communicate with builders. 

I'm just very opposed to raising higher and higher barriers to people attaining our services and expecting home owners to come to us with a "clear vision" of what they want or expect them to reflect on the "quality of the natural light pouring into the room" - it's not a client's job to come to us "prepared" for our services. (Lee and Lawrence were more diplomatic, I found that section to be pretty obnoxious.)

The more we as architects erect these richly textured, soaringly insurmountable barriers between ourselves and the rest of the world, the more we marginalize ourselves and make the profession seem frivolous and irrelevant to most of the population. Meanwhile, everyday homeowners are left to fend for themselves and end up building houses where the kitchen and laundry spaces are poorly thought out, the mudroom is too small and the best access to the view is from the bathroom window because the house wasn't properly sited...  Or, they end up with an older home that has been "Franken-built" over the years and marks time through a variety of mis-matched remodels and additions. 

I don't think articles like this serve us architects well, but unfortunately I can't say it doesn't reflect the perception of what we do.

My two cents - distribute this to non-architects and it will simply reinforce the idea that residential architecture is only for the monied. What does this say to the average homeowner who need help with a smaller project? Architects and architecture need to be seen as accessible, otherwise a lot of us are out of jobs. Everyone deserves good design. Something like this is going to make people shy away from hiring an architect.

Does this article cover all aspects of hiring/working with an architect?  Are any aspects of this piece inaccurate? Or is this useful educational material for potential clients? Let me know if this is quality content worthy of sharing with non-architect audiences.  

Hiring High End Residential Architects A Guide

le

I think the answer might be that architects should try to meet people where they are - not make them conform to our ideals or personal standards? If people want a glossy magazine showplace, and they have time to meet the requirements outlined in the article and can find an architect who meets their standard, I respect that. 

My issue is that the high end group is the only group that seems to have access to our services - meanwhile, as you know, there is abundant work and a significant need for trained architects generated by the HGTV/DIY mindset and very few architects available to help homeowners achieve better outcomes.

The upside is that my practice benefits from the lack of competition doing this type of work, but I also realize my portfolio is far from the ideals set forth in the article. It's impossible to show all of the bad design decisions that were avoided in the process of designing the pretty average residential projects that my clients are really happy with. Most people don't want a "machine for living", they just want something that functions better and looks like (or better and newer than) their neighbors house. 

For SFR I tend to advocate for more of a coaching mindset to help clients achieve their own goals, rather than the mindsets of a master builder trying to achieve something closer to art, or a comptroller who manages processes, budgets and outcomes.

Unfortunately, the AIA barely acknowledges the condition of the single family residential landscape we have helped to create by our lack of participation and I have no idea how to build support for SFR work. However, for what it's worth, I don't think articles like the one that started this conversation are the way forward, but hopefully there is value in having the discussion, so thanks for providing and opening.

My last thoughts, so this is a conversation (one overdue),

So often we as people, not just architects, find ourselves ordering our lives into either-or situations. Two choices, or a binary is easier for our minds, perhaps.

All of the points made are valid, and we as architects, if we only hang with each other at the AIA, find ourselves unable to talk to basically everyone else. That's not good. The article, which was less bothersome to me, while seeing clearly the points made by others, doesn't lend itself to anyone other than the affluent who want a house that will someday appear in our glossy mags or Town & Country magazine. Whatever. There's a time and place for that.

I do like to control the process as I've seen without my control, there is no control for some builders. Clients get hurt. However, with good contractors, it's true that they don't "need" us. Some "want" us; I know that because I know them. It's this very conversation that has led me away from SFR work as I've lost patience with builder homes and the HGTV/DIY mindset. That's my problem, not anyone else's.

So what's the answer? How can we get out of our own way and ego and be more things to more people rather than only to this people group or that group?

It shouldn't be a choice of only this-or-that. Will the AIA support that? Will more architects support that? I think it's time we all do.

I agree with the points Lee and Lawrence made and truly question the value of positioning architecture as an exclusive "high-end" service. Of course, there are clients who want that type of service, but I'm more concerned with the fact that as a profession, architects have completely turned over the design of most single family homes to general contractors and others who are not trained in architecture. Not because there isn't a need or we don't add value, but because (as outlined in the article) we focus on controlling and delivering an outcome, not on ideas, exploration and process. 

I agree with the beginning of the article that homes tell a story and each client and site is unique, but it's also entirely possible to work with clients only through the schematic design phase to help them tell their story and set the project up for success. Most mid-range, average single family residential clients can't afford to pay for an architect to manage the final outcome and clearly builders don't "need" our services, but clients can afford to pay for basic master planning and space planning services and value having support as they select and communicate with builders. 

I'm just very opposed to raising higher and higher barriers to people attaining our services and expecting home owners to come to us with a "clear vision" of what they want or expect them to reflect on the "quality of the natural light pouring into the room" - it's not a client's job to come to us "prepared" for our services. (Lee and Lawrence were more diplomatic, I found that section to be pretty obnoxious.)

The more we as architects erect these richly textured, soaringly insurmountable barriers between ourselves and the rest of the world, the more we marginalize ourselves and make the profession seem frivolous and irrelevant to most of the population. Meanwhile, everyday homeowners are left to fend for themselves and end up building houses where the kitchen and laundry spaces are poorly thought out, the mudroom is too small and the best access to the view is from the bathroom window because the house wasn't properly sited...  Or, they end up with an older home that has been "Franken-built" over the years and marks time through a variety of mis-matched remodels and additions. 

I don't think articles like this serve us architects well, but unfortunately I can't say it doesn't reflect the perception of what we do.

My two cents - distribute this to non-architects and it will simply reinforce the idea that residential architecture is only for the monied. What does this say to the average homeowner who need help with a smaller project? Architects and architecture need to be seen as accessible, otherwise a lot of us are out of jobs. Everyone deserves good design. Something like this is going to make people shy away from hiring an architect.

Does this article cover all aspects of hiring/working with an architect?  Are any aspects of this piece inaccurate? Or is this useful educational material for potential clients? Let me know if this is quality content worthy of sharing with non-architect audiences.  

Hiring High End Residential Architects A Guide

le

study history - especially the history of licensure and building code.

the AIA and various architecture boards lost numerous lawsuits that created separation between builders and architects.

the building code allows almost anyone to design and build residential homes within certain parameters.

There are some design build firms led by architects in the high-end residential space doing amazing work

There are some contractors who value design partnerships also doing amazing high-end work

Everyone else gets garbage by Lennar

I think the answer might be that architects should try to meet people where they are - not make them conform to our ideals or personal standards? If people want a glossy magazine showplace, and they have time to meet the requirements outlined in the article and can find an architect who meets their standard, I respect that. 

My issue is that the high end group is the only group that seems to have access to our services - meanwhile, as you know, there is abundant work and a significant need for trained architects generated by the HGTV/DIY mindset and very few architects available to help homeowners achieve better outcomes.

The upside is that my practice benefits from the lack of competition doing this type of work, but I also realize my portfolio is far from the ideals set forth in the article. It's impossible to show all of the bad design decisions that were avoided in the process of designing the pretty average residential projects that my clients are really happy with. Most people don't want a "machine for living", they just want something that functions better and looks like (or better and newer than) their neighbors house. 

For SFR I tend to advocate for more of a coaching mindset to help clients achieve their own goals, rather than the mindsets of a master builder trying to achieve something closer to art, or a comptroller who manages processes, budgets and outcomes.

Unfortunately, the AIA barely acknowledges the condition of the single family residential landscape we have helped to create by our lack of participation and I have no idea how to build support for SFR work. However, for what it's worth, I don't think articles like the one that started this conversation are the way forward, but hopefully there is value in having the discussion, so thanks for providing and opening.

My last thoughts, so this is a conversation (one overdue),

So often we as people, not just architects, find ourselves ordering our lives into either-or situations. Two choices, or a binary is easier for our minds, perhaps.

All of the points made are valid, and we as architects, if we only hang with each other at the AIA, find ourselves unable to talk to basically everyone else. That's not good. The article, which was less bothersome to me, while seeing clearly the points made by others, doesn't lend itself to anyone other than the affluent who want a house that will someday appear in our glossy mags or Town & Country magazine. Whatever. There's a time and place for that.

I do like to control the process as I've seen without my control, there is no control for some builders. Clients get hurt. However, with good contractors, it's true that they don't "need" us. Some "want" us; I know that because I know them. It's this very conversation that has led me away from SFR work as I've lost patience with builder homes and the HGTV/DIY mindset. That's my problem, not anyone else's.

So what's the answer? How can we get out of our own way and ego and be more things to more people rather than only to this people group or that group?

It shouldn't be a choice of only this-or-that. Will the AIA support that? Will more architects support that? I think it's time we all do.

I agree with the points Lee and Lawrence made and truly question the value of positioning architecture as an exclusive "high-end" service. Of course, there are clients who want that type of service, but I'm more concerned with the fact that as a profession, architects have completely turned over the design of most single family homes to general contractors and others who are not trained in architecture. Not because there isn't a need or we don't add value, but because (as outlined in the article) we focus on controlling and delivering an outcome, not on ideas, exploration and process. 

I agree with the beginning of the article that homes tell a story and each client and site is unique, but it's also entirely possible to work with clients only through the schematic design phase to help them tell their story and set the project up for success. Most mid-range, average single family residential clients can't afford to pay for an architect to manage the final outcome and clearly builders don't "need" our services, but clients can afford to pay for basic master planning and space planning services and value having support as they select and communicate with builders. 

I'm just very opposed to raising higher and higher barriers to people attaining our services and expecting home owners to come to us with a "clear vision" of what they want or expect them to reflect on the "quality of the natural light pouring into the room" - it's not a client's job to come to us "prepared" for our services. (Lee and Lawrence were more diplomatic, I found that section to be pretty obnoxious.)

The more we as architects erect these richly textured, soaringly insurmountable barriers between ourselves and the rest of the world, the more we marginalize ourselves and make the profession seem frivolous and irrelevant to most of the population. Meanwhile, everyday homeowners are left to fend for themselves and end up building houses where the kitchen and laundry spaces are poorly thought out, the mudroom is too small and the best access to the view is from the bathroom window because the house wasn't properly sited...  Or, they end up with an older home that has been "Franken-built" over the years and marks time through a variety of mis-matched remodels and additions. 

I don't think articles like this serve us architects well, but unfortunately I can't say it doesn't reflect the perception of what we do.

My two cents - distribute this to non-architects and it will simply reinforce the idea that residential architecture is only for the monied. What does this say to the average homeowner who need help with a smaller project? Architects and architecture need to be seen as accessible, otherwise a lot of us are out of jobs. Everyone deserves good design. Something like this is going to make people shy away from hiring an architect.

Does this article cover all aspects of hiring/working with an architect?  Are any aspects of this piece inaccurate? Or is this useful educational material for potential clients? Let me know if this is quality content worthy of sharing with non-architect audiences.  

Hiring High End Residential Architects A Guide

le

Historical realities indeed exist, but I think focusing on what we can't legislate misses the opportunity. People do value what architects bring when they experience it and there is a great need to improve the condition of the aging SFR housing stock in the U.S. 

Rather than lamenting the "garbage" everyone else gets, why don't we ask questions and start problem solving? How do we make architectural services more accessible across different price points? Can we find ways to contribute our unique skill sets that helps to improve project outcomes? The builders filling that middle market figured out how to deliver efficiently and in my experience, they welcome having design and communication support from an architect in working with clients. It doesn't have to be adversarial.

It seems like we should be able to meet this challenge with creativity, not just wish for different laws. And our history doesn't have to dictate our future - It's on us to figure out how to participate in the SFR building process by making our services available and affordable (and maybe by letting go of our need to dictate the outcome). 

study history - especially the history of licensure and building code.

the AIA and various architecture boards lost numerous lawsuits that created separation between builders and architects.

the building code allows almost anyone to design and build residential homes within certain parameters.

There are some design build firms led by architects in the high-end residential space doing amazing work

There are some contractors who value design partnerships also doing amazing high-end work

Everyone else gets garbage by Lennar

I think the answer might be that architects should try to meet people where they are - not make them conform to our ideals or personal standards? If people want a glossy magazine showplace, and they have time to meet the requirements outlined in the article and can find an architect who meets their standard, I respect that. 

My issue is that the high end group is the only group that seems to have access to our services - meanwhile, as you know, there is abundant work and a significant need for trained architects generated by the HGTV/DIY mindset and very few architects available to help homeowners achieve better outcomes.

The upside is that my practice benefits from the lack of competition doing this type of work, but I also realize my portfolio is far from the ideals set forth in the article. It's impossible to show all of the bad design decisions that were avoided in the process of designing the pretty average residential projects that my clients are really happy with. Most people don't want a "machine for living", they just want something that functions better and looks like (or better and newer than) their neighbors house. 

For SFR I tend to advocate for more of a coaching mindset to help clients achieve their own goals, rather than the mindsets of a master builder trying to achieve something closer to art, or a comptroller who manages processes, budgets and outcomes.

Unfortunately, the AIA barely acknowledges the condition of the single family residential landscape we have helped to create by our lack of participation and I have no idea how to build support for SFR work. However, for what it's worth, I don't think articles like the one that started this conversation are the way forward, but hopefully there is value in having the discussion, so thanks for providing and opening.

My last thoughts, so this is a conversation (one overdue),

So often we as people, not just architects, find ourselves ordering our lives into either-or situations. Two choices, or a binary is easier for our minds, perhaps.

All of the points made are valid, and we as architects, if we only hang with each other at the AIA, find ourselves unable to talk to basically everyone else. That's not good. The article, which was less bothersome to me, while seeing clearly the points made by others, doesn't lend itself to anyone other than the affluent who want a house that will someday appear in our glossy mags or Town & Country magazine. Whatever. There's a time and place for that.

I do like to control the process as I've seen without my control, there is no control for some builders. Clients get hurt. However, with good contractors, it's true that they don't "need" us. Some "want" us; I know that because I know them. It's this very conversation that has led me away from SFR work as I've lost patience with builder homes and the HGTV/DIY mindset. That's my problem, not anyone else's.

So what's the answer? How can we get out of our own way and ego and be more things to more people rather than only to this people group or that group?

It shouldn't be a choice of only this-or-that. Will the AIA support that? Will more architects support that? I think it's time we all do.

I agree with the points Lee and Lawrence made and truly question the value of positioning architecture as an exclusive "high-end" service. Of course, there are clients who want that type of service, but I'm more concerned with the fact that as a profession, architects have completely turned over the design of most single family homes to general contractors and others who are not trained in architecture. Not because there isn't a need or we don't add value, but because (as outlined in the article) we focus on controlling and delivering an outcome, not on ideas, exploration and process. 

I agree with the beginning of the article that homes tell a story and each client and site is unique, but it's also entirely possible to work with clients only through the schematic design phase to help them tell their story and set the project up for success. Most mid-range, average single family residential clients can't afford to pay for an architect to manage the final outcome and clearly builders don't "need" our services, but clients can afford to pay for basic master planning and space planning services and value having support as they select and communicate with builders. 

I'm just very opposed to raising higher and higher barriers to people attaining our services and expecting home owners to come to us with a "clear vision" of what they want or expect them to reflect on the "quality of the natural light pouring into the room" - it's not a client's job to come to us "prepared" for our services. (Lee and Lawrence were more diplomatic, I found that section to be pretty obnoxious.)

The more we as architects erect these richly textured, soaringly insurmountable barriers between ourselves and the rest of the world, the more we marginalize ourselves and make the profession seem frivolous and irrelevant to most of the population. Meanwhile, everyday homeowners are left to fend for themselves and end up building houses where the kitchen and laundry spaces are poorly thought out, the mudroom is too small and the best access to the view is from the bathroom window because the house wasn't properly sited...  Or, they end up with an older home that has been "Franken-built" over the years and marks time through a variety of mis-matched remodels and additions. 

I don't think articles like this serve us architects well, but unfortunately I can't say it doesn't reflect the perception of what we do.

My two cents - distribute this to non-architects and it will simply reinforce the idea that residential architecture is only for the monied. What does this say to the average homeowner who need help with a smaller project? Architects and architecture need to be seen as accessible, otherwise a lot of us are out of jobs. Everyone deserves good design. Something like this is going to make people shy away from hiring an architect.

Does this article cover all aspects of hiring/working with an architect?  Are any aspects of this piece inaccurate? Or is this useful educational material for potential clients? Let me know if this is quality content worthy of sharing with non-architect audiences.  

Hiring High End Residential Architects A Guide

le

Does this article cover all aspects of hiring/working with an architect?  Are any aspects of this piece inaccurate? Or is this useful educational material for potential clients? Let me know if this is quality content worthy of sharing with non-architect audiences.  

Hiring High End Residential Architects A Guide

le

I agree with many of the comments on this thread. The article was ok, but I was reading it from the perspective of "would it be useful to my clients". The answer is somewhat yes and somewhat no. I have clients that are not high-end. They come to me with real budgets, challenging budgets, challenging scopes for renovations and additions. They come to me with a germ of an idea but want my assistance in not just making the idea real, but considering how they might improve their spaces in day-to-day living in ways they hadn't considered. Is it glamorous? Does it win the fancy awards? Maybe not, but I would argue that shouldn't architects be more concerned with making a difference in people's lives? Shouldn't we be thinking about helping with the expertise we are trained for that means the most to the client? 

Anyway, my two cents is that Architecture, particularly Residential Architecture, with the capital A, is not about common realities and more about ego (of clients and architects). Don't get me wrong - it's beautiful and skillful work and I enjoy seeing it, but it's not in-the-trenches work. It's not accessible architecture to the average homeowner. I propose that the work for the average homeowner, that creates beauty and function when the client didn't know it could be so is the real triumph of architecture. 

Does this article cover all aspects of hiring/working with an architect?  Are any aspects of this piece inaccurate? Or is this useful educational material for potential clients? Let me know if this is quality content worthy of sharing with non-architect audiences.  

Hiring High End Residential Architects A Guide

le

This has been a valuable thread, and even with my shift away from SFR (with exceptions), talking about it, regardless of one's opinion over one rogue article is overdue.

Let me ask a reflective question. Is it worth it when our bandwidth in life is limited? The thread is an AIA thread, and we just went through a season of design awards. Only the SFR on the periphery will ever grace the glossy journals we hold so dear or will ever win an AIA Award. Low budget, normal projects don't win.

What's the answer? Well, it's not binary, but infinite. Each of us has to decide. Take on the 10,000 SF house and try to call it sustainable, or make someone's everyday life just a bit better because it's well organized, well considered, but it's not magazine worthy. We talk out of both sides of our mouth, present company included at times.

Let's not be too easy on homeowners though. I found Americans are cheap and the DIY spirit is high. Why would I hire someone I don't think I need? "We're only going to be in this house another five years anyway." A majority of the SFR calls I get are for those who "need" a permit, want someone to "draw it up," as they have ideas, or just need "some drawings" for their contractor. Contractors in SFR in my world aren't always heros either (I do know a few). Most don't want us around, they want to control the process (in their favor, not the homeowner) just as much as we want to control the process. So who is right? Everyone and no one.

I applaud those who are humble enough to take on unrecognized work. I wish there were awards for you.

I agree with many of the comments on this thread. The article was ok, but I was reading it from the perspective of "would it be useful to my clients". The answer is somewhat yes and somewhat no. I have clients that are not high-end. They come to me with real budgets, challenging budgets, challenging scopes for renovations and additions. They come to me with a germ of an idea but want my assistance in not just making the idea real, but considering how they might improve their spaces in day-to-day living in ways they hadn't considered. Is it glamorous? Does it win the fancy awards? Maybe not, but I would argue that shouldn't architects be more concerned with making a difference in people's lives? Shouldn't we be thinking about helping with the expertise we are trained for that means the most to the client? 

Anyway, my two cents is that Architecture, particularly Residential Architecture, with the capital A, is not about common realities and more about ego (of clients and architects). Don't get me wrong - it's beautiful and skillful work and I enjoy seeing it, but it's not in-the-trenches work. It's not accessible architecture to the average homeowner. I propose that the work for the average homeowner, that creates beauty and function when the client didn't know it could be so is the real triumph of architecture. 

Does this article cover all aspects of hiring/working with an architect?  Are any aspects of this piece inaccurate? Or is this useful educational material for potential clients? Let me know if this is quality content worthy of sharing with non-architect audiences.  

Hiring High End Residential Architects A Guide

le

Doreen – I would love to talk sometime! It sounds like you have also figured out some "in the trenches" ways to make SFR architecture work.   

Although the following answers might not be a good fit for everyone, maybe they will lead to other ideas… Architects are leaving too much work on the table and homes that make us 'sad' like the poorly sited, cookie-cutter builder homes H. Todd mentioned in Seattle are unfortunately the norm everywhere.

All I can say is that in my opinion doing custom single family residential does not pencil unless you have a wealthy client…

The way I personally make it "pencil" (good term!) is to focus almost exclusively on Schematic Design and partial Design Development and then do a high volume of projects (which works because so many people need help with basic planning). We live in a rural area with below average population and income, but we average between 30 to 50 projects a year. We do have a healthy number of clients with higher incomes who build and remodel lake homes in the area, but they are not the types of homes or clients who would want to pay for a full-service architect and most of our projects are similar scales and have similar invoices.

My studio consists of me working an extremely flexible full-time schedule and my part-time office manager who has a degree in interior design (and two small children that take up the rest of her time) and we often have an intern working about 10 hours a week.

Let's not be too easy on homeowners though. I found Americans are cheap and the DIY spirit is high. Why would I hire someone I don't think I need? "We're only going to be in this house another five years anyway." A majority of the SFR calls I get are for those who "need" a permit, want someone to "draw it up," as they have ideas, or just need "some drawings" for their contractor.

I 100% get those requests! We don't work with any clients who just want us to work "for" them – the process is collaborative. We start with an extensive (and billable) preliminary interview where we learn about the project and communicate our process and decide if the project is a good fit. Even when homeowners have a sketch that they just want me to "draw up" I let them know I will be building a 3D model of their sketch on an image of the site and will be making suggestions and may re-work the design. I've never had a client drawing fully work "as is" – but once they can see why it doesn't work and consider alternatives, most clients are happy to reconsider (and their nervous spouses feel more included). Even if they decide not to take advice or change the design, most value the input.

I try to coach homeowners and make suggestions that I know will hold value and improve function, but at the end of the day, it's their house. In my mind, as long as clients are aware of why a decision might add unnecessary cost or not function well and the design still meets code, I can let it go… I think of it more like being a basic health care provider who can't make people exercise or quit bad habits. And just like in health care, success and improvement isn't measured by achieving perfection (or being featured in a magazine!). However, for many of our clients – the outcomes are vastly better than they would have been without an architect and both the clients that listen and those that don't are grateful to feel heard - and both value and pay for our services.

Contractors in SFR in my world aren't always heros either (I do know a few). Most don't want us around, they want to control the process (in their favor, not the homeowner) just as much as we want to control the process. So who is right? Everyone and no one.

Agreed – but the way I see it, contractors are the ones who have to warrantee the work, know what they and their subs are capable of and know what methods and materials they like and can fit within tight budgets. It also doesn't make sense to me to undermine the relationship between the builder and the homeowner by micro-managing and second-guessing them. Plus, my design and quality standards are pretty much always going to blow up a tight budget, but most average homeowners don't notice or appreciate the difference. Usually, if it's something their neighbors have – it's good enough for them.

The way we handle SFR construction is to produce a schematic bid-set that homeowners can use to talk with and select a contractor. That way, clients are getting bids on the project THEY understand and want to build, not what the contractor thinks will be easiest and cheapest. Once they have an agreement with a contractor to build, we function as a sub-contracted service if needed. So, if a contractor suggests a change to save costs and the homeowner wants to see how the change would impact the design, we charge and hourly rate to update the design model so the homeowner can decide if it's worth the doing. If homeowners want help with finishes or contractors want additional drawings for construction or permit, we provide drawings and design support as needed as a subcontracted service to the contractor. (However, we don't provide permit or construction drawings to unlicensed or DIY builders). This process empowers homeowners to make the decisions that they feel are best and builders are free to make suggestions that can help save costs. 

Our role is to generate and document architectural ideas and promote teamwork and communication, NOT to promise a quality outcome or a construction cost. We are rarely involved in the building process - in fact, we often don't know if clients follow through with their projects. However, we regularly get photographs and invites to come see the project when it is finished because homeowners are happy with their results. We also get referrals from builders who appreciate working with a client who knows what they want coupled with our hands-off / support as needed approach.

Clearly I care a LOT about this topic because the need for design services is so great and there is SO much available work that architects are missing out on. However…

Only the SFR on the periphery will ever grace the glossy journals we hold so dear or will ever win an AIA Award. Low budget, normal projects don't win.

Not gonna lie – this was hard to get over…! The only people who regularly dismiss or don't understand the value of average, everyday SFR architecture are other architects. I'm acutely aware of how unimpressive my work looks to other architects because I've surrendered my portfolio to be filled with everyday people's homes (and choices!) Admittedly, it's not "great" work and there are no awards to validate it's worth. But I also know how proud my clients are of their projects and how much the project benefitted from having access to basic architectural design services. Clients happily share their projects, and we do almost no marketing because of it. 

Ultimately, the 'award' is the good relationships we have and the flexibility that allows my office manager and I time to go to our kid's track meets and throw birthday parties and prioritize our quality of life while we also earn an income practicing just the basics of "good" architecture. 

I understand why working this way is a tough sell to architects, especially with the way we are trained and how the profession is currently structured. It's unlikely the AIA will be promoting any kind of 'mindset shift' toward focusing on average SFR or architecture as a sub-contracted service anytime in the near future because it can seem like selling out our architectural ideals... But as constraints tighten and more architects 'fall out' of the profession like I did, it seems helpful to share that there ARE ways create viable and valuable practice models that promote a healthier SFR landscape and a healthier work life. 

This has been a valuable thread, and even with my shift away from SFR (with exceptions), talking about it, regardless of one's opinion over one rogue article is overdue.

Let me ask a reflective question. Is it worth it when our bandwidth in life is limited? The thread is an AIA thread, and we just went through a season of design awards. Only the SFR on the periphery will ever grace the glossy journals we hold so dear or will ever win an AIA Award. Low budget, normal projects don't win.

What's the answer? Well, it's not binary, but infinite. Each of us has to decide. Take on the 10,000 SF house and try to call it sustainable, or make someone's everyday life just a bit better because it's well organized, well considered, but it's not magazine worthy. We talk out of both sides of our mouth, present company included at times.

Let's not be too easy on homeowners though. I found Americans are cheap and the DIY spirit is high. Why would I hire someone I don't think I need? "We're only going to be in this house another five years anyway." A majority of the SFR calls I get are for those who "need" a permit, want someone to "draw it up," as they have ideas, or just need "some drawings" for their contractor. Contractors in SFR in my world aren't always heros either (I do know a few). Most don't want us around, they want to control the process (in their favor, not the homeowner) just as much as we want to control the process. So who is right? Everyone and no one.

I applaud those who are humble enough to take on unrecognized work. I wish there were awards for you.

I agree with many of the comments on this thread. The article was ok, but I was reading it from the perspective of "would it be useful to my clients". The answer is somewhat yes and somewhat no. I have clients that are not high-end. They come to me with real budgets, challenging budgets, challenging scopes for renovations and additions. They come to me with a germ of an idea but want my assistance in not just making the idea real, but considering how they might improve their spaces in day-to-day living in ways they hadn't considered. Is it glamorous? Does it win the fancy awards? Maybe not, but I would argue that shouldn't architects be more concerned with making a difference in people's lives? Shouldn't we be thinking about helping with the expertise we are trained for that means the most to the client? 

Anyway, my two cents is that Architecture, particularly Residential Architecture, with the capital A, is not about common realities and more about ego (of clients and architects). Don't get me wrong - it's beautiful and skillful work and I enjoy seeing it, but it's not in-the-trenches work. It's not accessible architecture to the average homeowner. I propose that the work for the average homeowner, that creates beauty and function when the client didn't know it could be so is the real triumph of architecture. 

Does this article cover all aspects of hiring/working with an architect?  Are any aspects of this piece inaccurate? Or is this useful educational material for potential clients? Let me know if this is quality content worthy of sharing with non-architect audiences.  

Hiring High End Residential Architects A Guide

le