On the vast majority of residential projects in the US architects are seen as a little more than a vehicle to obtain a building permit. Architects have lost public trust, and the beneficiaries have been contractors. There are myriad reasons for this, but fundamentally architects have done a poor job conveying to people the value they provide. Willfully or otherwise this has mostly been self-inflicted; the high social ideals of the Modernists transitioned into social commentators the likes of Superstudio and Archigram that produced fantastic renderings but built very little. Academia followed suit, shifting from practical building lessons to lionizing unbuilt provocateurs like Lebbeus Woods and John Hejduk, and the early work of Bernard Tschumi and Daniel Liebeskind – fantastical unbuildable images. The profession quickly devolved in the self-referential navel gazing of Post-Modernism, often devoid of social and physical context.
This gradual erosion of public trust and detachment from practical realities resulted in clients pushing back against fees – when there is little perceived value to your services, people aren’t willing to pay. This accelerated the shedding of services and liabilities, giving rise to a wide cadre and seemingly endless number of industries that have eroded their historic role – Interior Designers, Cost Estimators, Construction Managers (both at-risk and advisor), Owner’s Representatives, Client Representatives, Envelope Consultants, Energy Consultants…
Given the reality that construction and codes have become increasingly complex, some of this is understandable. But the reputation of architects as out of touch dilettantes concerned only with pretty pictures, has firmly taken hold.
Contractors on the other hand, rebranded as ‘builders’, have firmly established themselves as the experts in construction. Much of this seems to be the result of self-promotion; my social media feed is endlessly filled with videos of contractors discussing construction methods or details, without mention that much of it is either architect/engineer driven or simply code compliance.
Self-promotion can feel difficult for many professionals (especially of certain generations) trained to value ideals more than marketing, and architects have ceded the social media realm to contractors-as-builders. A frequently misunderstood issue by people outside the industry is that of Means & Methods; for both logistical and liability reasons contractors are rightly responsible for how work is built, but this was never intended to place them in charge of what gets built. Any successful project is a collaboration of team members, and contractors have a central and invaluable role to play. But placing so much responsibility on the contractor creates its own set of problems. Project delays or extended timelines often result as issues are resolved; with the architect absent or less visible during construction clients only see the contractor’s efforts, damaging both personal and professional reputations, and further eroding trust.
One reality that many clients don’t appreciate is that the effort and cost of detailing a building is going to be taken on by either the architect or the contractor, and you are paying either way, and deferring details to the contractor can often result in project delays and additional costs. On a relatively small project with a budget of $30-$50,000 this might result in 10% additional cost – $3-5k may or may not be overly concerning. With a $3 million project. 10% represents a significant sum. In this sense the architect functions as a risk manager, reducing unknowns and providing cost predictability. It’s worth noting that the standard of care for architects anticipates 5-10% contingency for errors and omissions, and this would be in addition.
There is also the risk that things just don’t get resolved satisfactorily. There has always been a blindspot in architectural practices where detailing issues are delayed, with the notion that ‘we’ll figure it out during construction’, because the perception is it makes economic sense – less time on the drawings means more profit. But the required effort doesn’t disappear – it just shifts to excessive time spent during construction, with the added consequences of project delays, missed coordination items, and an overall sense by the contractor and owner that the architect has not done their job.
The impetus for architects to change their services is obviously fee – nobody wants to work for free. Clients need to be aware of what they’re getting, and what they’re sacrificing, when they insist on undercutting fees. There are many ways to choose an architect. Chasing the lowest fee is the least advisable as lower fees typically mean fewer services, not more efficiency. When soliciting project proposals from an architect, require a written scope of services before signing anything, and ask explicitly what is not included. Ask what their contract administration protocol during construction is — frequency of site visits, what is their response time commitment, what is their responsibility for resolving issues (design/drawing, contractor, or site).
Owners should demand more from their architects, but they also have an obligation to bring clarity to the project of their intentions and goals. This is an issue of project scope – scale, complexity, program, and design intent. Ultimately project goals and services need to align. It’s possible to craft a beautifully detailed ADU for more absolute fee than a full house. Things like custom hardware, casework, complicated structural systems or site conditions, and high performance windows can all add significant complexity and drive up cost per square foot relative to a simple house with standard components. Clients need to clearly articulate their vision – things like coordinated finishes, millwork/casework details, etc. take time to execute, and professional fees rise accordingly. Bring a budget to the first meeting as a realistic constraint the architect needs to design within, and understand that hard construction costs are only a portion of it (with architect, engineering, and legal fees, fixtures, finishes, and lighting all adding expense).
For their part, architects need to recognize their culpability in the profession’s decline – incomplete drawing sets, inconsistent support during construction, and a willingness to accept lower fees without always informing the client what they are sacrificing. Not every project requires the same level of engagement (multi-phased design drawings, exhaustive detailing, finish selections, multiple design options or iterations) and architects should be willing to have that conversation and present appropriately tiered service levels with explicit descriptions of what is included and the associated risks for anything they are waiving. If a client declines scope, that declination should be recorded and the implications explained.
Clients frequently don’t appreciate the value of site visits or extensive involvement during construction, but when issues inevitably arise the unseen party gets the blame. Architects should establish a contract administration minimum on every project regardless of fee pressure, whether fairly compensated or not.
Last, don’t hesitate to engage social media, not as self-promotion but as public education; the contractors winning on that platform are positioning themselves as the experts and explaining how things work. Architects lost the public narrative, and reclaiming it requires explaining the profession in plain language in the same forums where it’s currently losing.
