A businesswoman once told me she had asked her girlfriend group what single word they would associate with architect. Could I guess what it was?
“Sexy” was my first suggestion. She snorted. Definitely not. I tried attractive, creative, flamboyant, earnest. None of those either. It wasn't even hard-working.
The word was “risk”.
Apparently, architects have a reputation for being bad with money, other people’s money. We take a client’s budget, design to our own whims, then shrug when the costs come back over budget.
This perception is unfair, but it exists, and architects need to acknowledge that it is a problem and actively address it.
So what do you do?
You start with the most important conversation an architect can have with a client: money. And you have it right at the beginning of the project.
That conversation is not always easy. A potential client once came into our office, drew a square on a piece of paper, then began circling inside it, his pencil looping again and again as he described his dream home. He stopped, put the pencil down, and slid the sketch of a circle inside a square across the table.
“Before we go any further, can you tell me what this is going to cost?”
Of course I did not know. I tried not to laugh. But from his perspective, he was about to embark on the biggest financial commitment of his life, and the professional in front of him could not answer his most important question.
An honest appraisal is the starting point. You work with the client to establish a budget that is broadly aligned with the brief, as far as either is known at that stage.
This is addressed in the first part of the Architect’s Appointment. You explain that the building cannot be costed accurately because it has not yet been designed, but based on empirical knowledge, the brief may need to be reduced, the budget increased, or usually a combination of both.
Once a feasibility study or initial design has been developed and site conditions are understood, a quantity surveyor should be appointed to prepare a cost report. This gives firm guidance early on, so that no further steps are taken without eyes wide open and decisions made against realistic figures.
Unfortunately, this does not always happen. At Dualchas, we regularly meet clients who come to us with a project designed by another architect, having discovered after months of work and significant fees that they cannot afford to build it. Often the designs are impressive. The architect has delivered more than the client expected. The clients are excited.
Then the tender prices come back, and it all collapses. The hard conversation was deferred, fingers were crossed, and now tears are being shed.
What a waste of time, effort, and money.
You then have to restart the conversation and explain that the brief and budget were never aligned. Everyone is back at square, and circle, one.
Even when the correct process is followed, things do not always go as planned. Architecture is not like the car industry, where models are pre-designed, tested, and priced, and the buyer chooses a colour from a limited palette.
Designing a house is closer to Homer Simpson’s car. The client’s ideas grow and mutate as the process unfolds. The building is not factory-made by robots but hand-built, often in remote locations and ferocious weather, by subcontractors who often have never worked together before.
And a quantity surveyor may not have allowed for the fact that nobody wants to build there at all, and those who do submit tenders, price the work somewhere between astronomical and absurd.
The news is broken to the client, and once again the word “risk” gets attached to the architect.
These scenarios do occur, which is why, when we are working on private houses, we prefer to advise clients before they buy a site.
Early in my career I met a young couple on a site in northwest Scotland. They wanted to build by the shore and would need to construct half a mile of access track. Standing beside them was a taciturn old Highland gentleman, the local contractor they hoped would build the house.
As I questioned the ambition of the project, the contractor spoke. He pointed to a distant caravan and, in his slow Gàidhlig-accented voice, told them about another couple with the same idea to build their dream home. They built the track all the way to the shore, and by the time they arrived, all they could afford was a caravan. They had been living there for ten years.
My couple withdrew their interest. Common sense prevailed before it was too late.
So the early conversations with clients are not only about money, but about risk in buying land. For example, a site having Planning in Principle does not guarantee that a site can be built on.
We have reviewed sites where there was no viable drainage solution except across neighbouring land. In one case the neighbour was the seller’s brother. They had fallen out, badly, and there was no possibility of cooperation. Without drainage, the plot couldn't be developed. We were able to warn our client before they bought a 1/4 acre of very expensive grazing.
Before any money changes hands we need to look at the access, ground conditions, services, drainage, planning constraints, ownership boundaries. Any of these can render a site unexpectedly expensive or completely undevelopable.
It is often not the solicitor who identifies these issues. It is the architect.
This is where our skills add real value. We can reduce risk for prospective self-builders by identifying what the risks are, establish what investigations are needed, and give confidence that a site and project are viable. And we can also identify opportunities that others would miss that can save money. It may sound mundane, but this builds reassurance and allows a creative collaboration to develop on solid ground.
The architect can demonstrate their true value through talent, knowledge, and experience. Our talent to think creatively; our knowledge of construction systems and procurement; our experience of building on difficult sites. And also our ability to listen and understand what is important to our client. Follow the right process, and something genuinely joyful can be delivered, something that exceeds expectations that may even come in on budget.
Perhaps then the word placed against architect would be “risk-averse”.
Now that would be sexy.