5 ms·

> Frequent checking on the work and hounding the people to fix it. Isn't this partially what you pay your architect for? If you're willing to pay top dollar yo

> Frequent checking on the work and hounding the people to fix it. Isn't this partially what you pay your architect for? If you're willing to pay top dollar you should be able to find one that's very hands on and coordinates the whole building process as your representative.

samtho 4y ago
I’ve worked in construction. For independent Architects, you get plan and some schematics, but that’s it. An architectural firm may provide the white glove treatment by managing the build, getting engineers involved, and basically making sure it’s done right. It is not cheap and most certainly not accessible to the average home builder.
nordsieck 4y ago
>> Frequent checking on the work and hounding the people to fix it. > Isn't this partially what you pay your architect for? There simply isn't a way to eliminate the principal-agent problem.
- antipotoad 4y ago
  This neatly summarizes the dynamics of so many client-contractor relationships. Takes real professional integrity not to exploit the information asymmetry, which I regrettably found to be in short supply in the building trades, at least in the UK.
- nileshtrivedi 4y ago
  If the agent insures the quality and is contractually bound to pay all expenses for repair and maintenance, that could avoid a major chunk of the principal-agent problem.
  - lotsofpulp 4y ago
    Good luck with enforcing the contract. The cost to prove the agent made the error (and not you or the manufacturer or time) and then other legal costs would probably almost always outweigh the cost to just fix the problem. It might be possible to materially minimize the probability of error to have 2 agents, one that checks the others’ work. But that also will get costly.
- silverlake 4y ago
  This is true, but it can be improved. For example, offer a bonus for excellent air tightness and insulation, which can be tested once the home shell is complete. Hire an inspector 1 or 2 times to critique construction along the way.
desiarnezjr 4y ago
No. Architects are about end results and "vision". General contractors, while imperfect, should be about getting it built. So an architect you should roughly expect getting something built at any cost. A GC should be how to do it pragmatically or even if it's possible. In between is the end result.
- dan-robertson 4y ago
  I think some architects will offer this kind of supervision of the project as a service. I don’t know to what extent these are handled by different people at the firm from the design part but I expect there are small firms where one person can do both. I think it’s wrong to think that all architects are like celebrity architects. If you’re designing a house there may be room for weird designs (if that’s what the client wants) but I think there’s also just a lot of technical or boring details that are handled by architects too.
- throw0101c 4y ago
  > Architects are about end results and "vision". General contractors, while imperfect, should be about getting it built. Plenty of architects care about getting the details right. Check out Steve Baczek, who is online a lot, and is very interested in building science details.
entropyie 4y ago
Our Architect in Ireland did this for us. He found the builders and also hired a QS and other people to manage cost. It was not at all cheap but well worth it as we were in no position to supervise ourselves. Even for a modest build, it was well worth the cost. I can't understand how people can spend $$$ on building a new house but try to go cheap on the Architect... All you get is a McMansion.
- CalRobert 4y ago
  I just had a house built in Ireland. Our architect was fairly cheap but it was that or nothing. It was a kit house and the builders still half-assed most things (they HATED the idea of making a house reasonably airtight for one) so I've been cleaning up their mess.
  - entropyie 4y ago
    I hear you, one would expect a kit house to be fairly straightforward, without needing too much input from an architect. Sorry to hear about your builders (though not surprised). What I had in mind when I made my comment though was my parent's neighbourhood in rural Ireland. A modest bungalow in a field that is now dwarfed by huge McMansions 3x the size every 300m in a strip 10km long. Each one massive, asymmetrical, uniquely ugly, and obviously sketched out on the back of a cigarette packet rather than designed by a competent architect. Bonus points for a huge set of gates with fancy piers and walls, because god forbid any of your neighbours might swing by casually and say hello. But hurray for the tight-knit rural community right? /rant
    - CalRobert 4y ago
      hah, honestly the experience has me working on getting out of Ireland. It was a mistake to move here, and doubly one to sink money in to an extension to make our cottage more livable. If it helps, I don't think we're part of one-off ribbon development since the original cottage was 200+ years old. I understand now why the heritage officer was so delighted to meet some chump who didn't realize there's a reason houses in the midlands are so cheap.... and here I thought I was an easy bike ride from a train station with regular service to Heuston, how could it go wrong? The extension is, in my view, quite nice. We tried to get away with some crazy newfangled ideas like "eaves" and "bug screens" but Ireland shot us down there. People think we're insane not building it out of cinderblocks already. Speaking of that tight-knit rural community, mostly I know that people can break the law with no consequences and won't talk to anyone their family hasn't known for at least 3 generations. And walking is bizarre and dangerous; the councillor thought I was joking when I asked about getting a footpath to the village 700 meters away. Of course, if Ireland weren't kicking and screaming about building apartments in the middle of cities neat jobs, schools, transport, and amenities, it would be in a much better position. Would be happy to compare notes! Email is in my bio.
toast0 4y ago
On home construction, some people use an architect to get their plans stamped and that's it. Those architects aren't supervising construction at all. But, if you've hired the architect to supervise construction, you've still got to supervise the architect. Maybe you only have to hound the architect to get issues fixed and let them figure out who fixes it, though; and they'll likely get a lot of things fixed without you, but you'll still get better results with regular supervision than hands off.
deltarholamda 4y ago
An architect that will do field supervision on a 1,000 sq. ft. house is going to be quite rare. You're more or less relegated to a freshly-minted architect, who may or may not be qualified (not enough experience) to do the kind of double-checking needed. Of course, paying more money could certainly help, but now you're paying 2,500 sq. ft. prices for a 1,000 sq. ft. house. There's not really a replacement for doing daily or at least twice-weekly inspections yourself. The architect may catch some things but miss a completely botched plumbing job. And just for fun, every issue you catch will become a fight with the sub-contractor.
simeonf 4y ago
>Isn't this partially what you pay your architect for? If you're willing to pay top dollar you should be able to find one that's very hands on and coordinates the whole building process as your representative. It is amazing how separate most architects are from the actual implementation. I sort of wish architects were required to apprentice as builders before doing design. I recently built a custom house with a long time friend as the architect and have a family member I could talk to who is an architect. Additionally there was a structural engineer involved in the project for things like truss design and sheer calculations I could talk. That's a lot of talent and experience in residential and commercial design! On the other hand my father is a general contractor and I have some construction experience and grew up around roofers, framers, etc. All the architects I talked to frequently had very low visibility into the difficulty and cost factors of their design proposals. For example: flush baseboards make the wall super clean and don't get dinged up. But no indie contractors in our area can install them. Curves on drywall interior walls will match the curves in the plastered exterior walls - but while wetted 1/4 inch drywall will bend a pretty tight inside curve it can't be attached to an outside curve because it pulls through the fasteners - I ended up kerf cutting plywood to make the bend, priming it for adhesion and plastering the curves with help from a high end plaster specialist. High windows downstairs go all the way to the ceiling inside which looks more balanced on the outside... but would require a small "vault" in the otherwise flat ceiling... Which would have affected the framing of the wall, required at least one custom floor truss instead of a standard TJI, made for super complicated trim in the affected rooms, required a very non-standard window size, and an expensive plaster detail at each such window. On my investigation it was going to be at least $25K to make 4 windows 8" taller! In my experience custom home building architects generally were not very construction aware. Talking about installation practices or costs usually resulted in advice to "get a bid"! Despite being very pleased with my architectural collaboration I don't think hands-on supervision of actual building practice is likely a realistic expectation from a typical architect.
wazoox 4y ago
The architect isn't present at all times. When I paid a company to put some new flooring, paints, etc a few years ago, the interior architect told the guys "the floorboards must always be placed in the direction of light, from the window wall towards the opposite wall". The following morning, I came early into the room, and the guy was dutifully aligning floorboards in the wrong direction. "What are you doing? You're supposed to lay them this way, not that way" "Oh, just testing". My ass. The guy had already forgotten the instructions he received the night before. In the toilets, the painter dutifully painted shut the plumbing and valves access panel ("you must open the panel before painting everything. And please don't paint the valves"). The electrician was about to pierce a hole between floors 1 foot away from the walls to pass cables through as I stopped him. Etc. When having an house built, you (or the architect, or some other responsible person with a working brain) must be there looking at everything all the time. And even with that, they will fuck up. They'll lay alternating tiles in the wrong pattern. They'll build stairs of uneven height. They'll put a window in the kitchen that won't open because it hits the faucet. They'll set up doors that open on the wrong side (all of these happened to my in-laws when getting their home built, and they were there watching every day). They'll fuck up every time you don't watch, every single time.

samtho 4y ago

I’ve worked in construction. For independent Architects, you get plan and some schematics, but that’s it. An architectural firm may provide the white glove treatment by managing the build, getting engineers involved, and basically making sure it’s done right. It is not cheap and most certainly not accessible to the average home builder.

nordsieck 4y ago

>> Frequent checking on the work and hounding the people to fix it. > Isn't this partially what you pay your architect for? There simply isn't a way to eliminate the principal-agent problem.

antipotoad 4y ago
This neatly summarizes the dynamics of so many client-contractor relationships. Takes real professional integrity not to exploit the information asymmetry, which I regrettably found to be in short supply in the building trades, at least in the UK.
nileshtrivedi 4y ago
If the agent insures the quality and is contractually bound to pay all expenses for repair and maintenance, that could avoid a major chunk of the principal-agent problem.
- lotsofpulp 4y ago
  Good luck with enforcing the contract. The cost to prove the agent made the error (and not you or the manufacturer or time) and then other legal costs would probably almost always outweigh the cost to just fix the problem. It might be possible to materially minimize the probability of error to have 2 agents, one that checks the others’ work. But that also will get costly.
silverlake 4y ago
This is true, but it can be improved. For example, offer a bonus for excellent air tightness and insulation, which can be tested once the home shell is complete. Hire an inspector 1 or 2 times to critique construction along the way.

desiarnezjr 4y ago

No. Architects are about end results and "vision". General contractors, while imperfect, should be about getting it built. So an architect you should roughly expect getting something built at any cost. A GC should be how to do it pragmatically or even if it's possible. In between is the end result.

dan-robertson 4y ago
I think some architects will offer this kind of supervision of the project as a service. I don’t know to what extent these are handled by different people at the firm from the design part but I expect there are small firms where one person can do both. I think it’s wrong to think that all architects are like celebrity architects. If you’re designing a house there may be room for weird designs (if that’s what the client wants) but I think there’s also just a lot of technical or boring details that are handled by architects too.
throw0101c 4y ago
> Architects are about end results and "vision". General contractors, while imperfect, should be about getting it built. Plenty of architects care about getting the details right. Check out Steve Baczek, who is online a lot, and is very interested in building science details.

entropyie 4y ago

Our Architect in Ireland did this for us. He found the builders and also hired a QS and other people to manage cost. It was not at all cheap but well worth it as we were in no position to supervise ourselves. Even for a modest build, it was well worth the cost. I can't understand how people can spend $$$ on building a new house but try to go cheap on the Architect... All you get is a McMansion.

CalRobert 4y ago
I just had a house built in Ireland. Our architect was fairly cheap but it was that or nothing. It was a kit house and the builders still half-assed most things (they HATED the idea of making a house reasonably airtight for one) so I've been cleaning up their mess.
- entropyie 4y ago
  I hear you, one would expect a kit house to be fairly straightforward, without needing too much input from an architect. Sorry to hear about your builders (though not surprised). What I had in mind when I made my comment though was my parent's neighbourhood in rural Ireland. A modest bungalow in a field that is now dwarfed by huge McMansions 3x the size every 300m in a strip 10km long. Each one massive, asymmetrical, uniquely ugly, and obviously sketched out on the back of a cigarette packet rather than designed by a competent architect. Bonus points for a huge set of gates with fancy piers and walls, because god forbid any of your neighbours might swing by casually and say hello. But hurray for the tight-knit rural community right? /rant
  - CalRobert 4y ago
    hah, honestly the experience has me working on getting out of Ireland. It was a mistake to move here, and doubly one to sink money in to an extension to make our cottage more livable. If it helps, I don't think we're part of one-off ribbon development since the original cottage was 200+ years old. I understand now why the heritage officer was so delighted to meet some chump who didn't realize there's a reason houses in the midlands are so cheap.... and here I thought I was an easy bike ride from a train station with regular service to Heuston, how could it go wrong? The extension is, in my view, quite nice. We tried to get away with some crazy newfangled ideas like "eaves" and "bug screens" but Ireland shot us down there. People think we're insane not building it out of cinderblocks already. Speaking of that tight-knit rural community, mostly I know that people can break the law with no consequences and won't talk to anyone their family hasn't known for at least 3 generations. And walking is bizarre and dangerous; the councillor thought I was joking when I asked about getting a footpath to the village 700 meters away. Of course, if Ireland weren't kicking and screaming about building apartments in the middle of cities neat jobs, schools, transport, and amenities, it would be in a much better position. Would be happy to compare notes! Email is in my bio.

toast0 4y ago

On home construction, some people use an architect to get their plans stamped and that's it. Those architects aren't supervising construction at all. But, if you've hired the architect to supervise construction, you've still got to supervise the architect. Maybe you only have to hound the architect to get issues fixed and let them figure out who fixes it, though; and they'll likely get a lot of things fixed without you, but you'll still get better results with regular supervision than hands off.

deltarholamda 4y ago

An architect that will do field supervision on a 1,000 sq. ft. house is going to be quite rare. You're more or less relegated to a freshly-minted architect, who may or may not be qualified (not enough experience) to do the kind of double-checking needed. Of course, paying more money could certainly help, but now you're paying 2,500 sq. ft. prices for a 1,000 sq. ft. house. There's not really a replacement for doing daily or at least twice-weekly inspections yourself. The architect may catch some things but miss a completely botched plumbing job. And just for fun, every issue you catch will become a fight with the sub-contractor.

simeonf 4y ago

>Isn't this partially what you pay your architect for? If you're willing to pay top dollar you should be able to find one that's very hands on and coordinates the whole building process as your representative. It is amazing how separate most architects are from the actual implementation. I sort of wish architects were required to apprentice as builders before doing design. I recently built a custom house with a long time friend as the architect and have a family member I could talk to who is an architect. Additionally there was a structural engineer involved in the project for things like truss design and sheer calculations I could talk. That's a lot of talent and experience in residential and commercial design! On the other hand my father is a general contractor and I have some construction experience and grew up around roofers, framers, etc. All the architects I talked to frequently had very low visibility into the difficulty and cost factors of their design proposals. For example: flush baseboards make the wall super clean and don't get dinged up. But no indie contractors in our area can install them. Curves on drywall interior walls will match the curves in the plastered exterior walls - but while wetted 1/4 inch drywall will bend a pretty tight inside curve it can't be attached to an outside curve because it pulls through the fasteners - I ended up kerf cutting plywood to make the bend, priming it for adhesion and plastering the curves with help from a high end plaster specialist. High windows downstairs go all the way to the ceiling inside which looks more balanced on the outside... but would require a small "vault" in the otherwise flat ceiling... Which would have affected the framing of the wall, required at least one custom floor truss instead of a standard TJI, made for super complicated trim in the affected rooms, required a very non-standard window size, and an expensive plaster detail at each such window. On my investigation it was going to be at least $25K to make 4 windows 8" taller! In my experience custom home building architects generally were not very construction aware. Talking about installation practices or costs usually resulted in advice to "get a bid"! Despite being very pleased with my architectural collaboration I don't think hands-on supervision of actual building practice is likely a realistic expectation from a typical architect.

wazoox 4y ago

The architect isn't present at all times. When I paid a company to put some new flooring, paints, etc a few years ago, the interior architect told the guys "the floorboards must always be placed in the direction of light, from the window wall towards the opposite wall". The following morning, I came early into the room, and the guy was dutifully aligning floorboards in the wrong direction. "What are you doing? You're supposed to lay them this way, not that way" "Oh, just testing". My ass. The guy had already forgotten the instructions he received the night before. In the toilets, the painter dutifully painted shut the plumbing and valves access panel ("you must open the panel before painting everything. And please don't paint the valves"). The electrician was about to pierce a hole between floors 1 foot away from the walls to pass cables through as I stopped him. Etc. When having an house built, you (or the architect, or some other responsible person with a working brain) must be there looking at everything all the time. And even with that, they will fuck up. They'll lay alternating tiles in the wrong pattern. They'll build stairs of uneven height. They'll put a window in the kitchen that won't open because it hits the faucet. They'll set up doors that open on the wrong side (all of these happened to my in-laws when getting their home built, and they were there watching every day). They'll fuck up every time you don't watch, every single time.