What is a design/build company?
Discussion Forum
Discussion Forum
Up Next
Video Shorts
Featured Story
From durability to energy efficiency, continuous exterior insulation is an accessbile approach to a high-performance wall.
Featured Video
Highlights
"I have learned so much thanks to the searchable articles on the FHB website. I can confidently say that I expect to be a life-long subscriber." - M.K.
Replies
The Builder and the Architect are one and the same. Thats what I know , and also they were very apealing in New Jersey back in the 70's and early 80's, Mother Earth news and Solar Heat, Clivus multrim Composting toilets Etc.
I like to think of my self as a designer/Builder on a small scale. And I find it challenging , to comunicate with my customers... No, really. Trying to convey idea's, and hear ideas, to come to a final design, Which is expected and accepted.
Using available products, Familiar to the customer. I try to understand the customers needs. As well as understand their, personal understanding of the process. I need to educate, as well as be educated, which It's hard work. Unfortunatly, Lowe's has alot to do with educating the customer as welI. Which sometimes, leaves me with a bunch of cheap, crappy products to compete with, And sucumb to.
I rarely have complaints with my ideas, And I prefer it, when It is the customers idea. Or at least that they sign off on the final idea. But, That is not really what your asking.
I Think most builders rely on regestered plans and architects , who are independent of their company.
Where there's A wheel there's a way, got any wheels?
I'm still trying to figure out what design/build has to do with skinning mules and Clius Multrums, LOL, but here's my two cents worth...
It is a very rapidly growing segment of this industry, one that I am happy to participate in.
When a person hires an architect to design and oversee the construction of their project, he must also then hire a builder to implement the designers ideas. It has become far too common for modern architects to fail to listen to the owners concerns for budget in the design phase. That sets up the builder as a fall guy, who has to take the blame for high costs when he is only building to the design, often correcting errors and ommissions devolving from the archy's inexperience. The primadona who drew it up ducks respoisibility. He may have created a wonderful work of art or a statement about his creative genius, but the owner is forever dissatisfied and suffers through the process amidst tensions between the archy and the builder.
With a qualified and experienced design/build company, you can expect the designer to attempt to work within your budget. his cost data is more likely to be accurate than many archys, being based on actual jobs completed.
Sometimes, there are cost savings as well. architects costs break into design, and job management, about half and half. Design costs will be about the same whether performed by your independent archy, or by a design professional in the building firm. But when it comes to building, the archy and the general contractor duplicate one another's efforts, to some degree. Dispensing with that dupli-tasking cuts costs.
With either method, it is indispensibly important to check out reputation, experience and quality of both parties.
Excellence is its own reward!
Just to add a couple things...
Lower initial cost - my rate for design is about half or 1/3 of an architect - usually about 3-4% of the gross cost of the project. Gives the client more money for those granite countertops.
I think that for most projects, design/build can yield a better finish product. By the time the project gets started, the builder is already intimately familiar with the project - not only how to build it but what the owner wants. After I have finished drawing the plans, I don't have to go around asking anyone how to implement the plan while building.
Simpler communications - If the owner speaks directly to the designer/builder, it can help eliminate costly errors. No third parties involved.
I don't know if you aren't charging enough for desin or if archys there are charging too much, but we gotta change that. You are leaving too much money on the table.
From what I hear ( painted witha broad brush so don't anyone pick it apart too much) an archy fee is around 15% with 7-8 going to design and balance going to jobsite management.
That usually means that a few working drawings are done in progress as part of job mangr but others are prepared for the front bid work.
savings come in for me in the design process in that I don't neeed to do as many detail drawings for my own crew, since we know what and how already on most of it. That is the communications thing you mentioned. That savings in errors is critical, not only to cost, but to job scheduling..
Excellence is its own reward!
I agree - there have been jobs I designed that I definitely should have charged more for - and some that I did quite well on.
One of the reasons is that I don't produce drawings anywhere as detailed as an architects...I don't need to. I basically draw the minimal set of plans necessary to plan the project and to get an engineer's stamp and a building permit. When I say minimal I don't mean inadequate, but like you said, I don't need a bunch of detail drawings to show how to put it together.
The other reason is that I put money for job management into the job - or at least I try to. I need to work on providing enough in the budget for my time spent not actually working, but coordinating.
This may be touching on soimething that deserves its own thread, but the reason for detail drawings depends a lot on the qualifications of both the builder and the architect, IMO
I'm thinking of a job where an archy had promised that he could do such and such with a ten foot ceiling.
Impossible since the space from ground to rough framing already in place was just under ten feet. Rather than argue with one who had his head buried, I just told the HO and archy I would wait for the working drawings and detail sections. Forcing him to work it out let him convince himself that it was not possible - something that I could see in a glance. But I made no enemies too soon that way..
Excellence is its own reward!
Every job is a mule in one way or another.
Thats my point exactly Pif, back in the sixties and seventies, Hippies wanted to do things there own way, and the established, methods and builders scoffed at the prospect. I know a guy who designed the system that blows styrofoam beads in between two panes of glass on the south side of the house, from where they are stored in black solar collecting 55 gallon drums, under the landing, on the staircase. two stories of glass. Who wants to be the guy to sell that Mule! to a mule LOLWhere there's A wheel there's a way, got any wheels?
http://theshadowlands.net/jd.htm
Where there's A wheel there's a way, got any wheels?
This is a company that assumes full responsibility for both design and construction. Frequently, this is an architect that performs both roles, or an architect that works with a contractor or a contractor that works with an architect. It is essential that the designer is properly qualitied as structural/mechanical/electrical issues are involved as well as aesthetic issues.
Dale -
If I may ask, what prompted the question?
If I get a bit esoteric here, it's because some history is worth while ....
If we go back to the time of the dawn of the gothic era, we find that the designer and builder were one in the same. The masons who created the great gothic cathedrals, working with other visionaries of the time, had a hand in both the creation of the concept and the physical manifestation of same.
The Renaisance era saw that union develop even further.
Now, while my interest in architectural history is focused mostly on the gothic and baroque eras, I'm not so fluent with what happened in later years that would have caused the schism between the design and the production of the built environment.
Suffice it to say, the AIA, to which I do *not* belong, promotes architecture in such a way as to suggest that the design professional is charged with the protection of the owner's interests. Not to the expense of the contractor, necessarily, in many cases the architect is put into a role of mediator resolving conflicts between the owner and contractor with respect to expectations. Of course, these conflicts should not, idealy, occur if everyone plays their part according to the script.
I WA state, where I am, the state laws require that anyone offering architectural design services be, in fact, a licensed architect licensed in the state. Architectural services are further defined to include the plethora of things architects do such as site planning, contract management, in addition to the preparation of plans and specifications.
Given all that, presuming the design build entity has a licensed architect on their staff, and she prepares the drawings, specs and so forth, to whom does she owe allegiance in the event of conflict? Who arbitrates any dissagreement between the contractor and the owner?
This isn't really an explanation of what a design/build company is so much as an observation of the situation. And I don't suggest design build to be innapropriate by any means. I agree with some of the comments in other responses that few architects have much of a grasp on cost control. Plus ideally, the owner *should* get a more complete package for the stated amount. By way of contrast to the conflict question - the contractor would have little room for negotiating change orders in such an arrangement provided the owner hasn't made additional requests once the initial budget and design was solidified.
Dennis in Bellevue WA
[email protected]
dennis,
This was more a question of curiosity steming from reading remodeling magazines. I just wanted some clarification of the term "design/build."
Thanks for your response,
dlb
.
Washington state does not require an Architects license for residential design. However - If you are not licensed as an Architect you may not use the words architect, architecture, or architectural in print to refer to yourself or what you do.
If you have a Masters in architecture, you may not state that fact in print unless you are also a licensed architect.
Though not required by law, you should probably not say or think these words either. In fact, you probably should not loiter for too long in the vicinity of any architectural signage or books on the subject.
If you see an architect coming, walk casually away as if nothing has happened.
No, Brujenn, a license is not required for residential "design". There are building "designers" that operate in the state of course. However, the RCW (Revised Code of Washington) goes to some length to define what constitutes the practice of architecture. From site planning to preparation of plans and specifications to contract administration. In the 30 plus years I've been in the profession, I've never heard of anyone being chastised for practicing architecture without a license. That's not to say there hasn't been a case that perhaps should have been made.
In fact, I've seen instances where architects themselves should probably have been at least admonished for practicing what could hardly be construed as architecture. (grin)
...........
Dennis in Bellevue WA
[email protected]
To completely stray from the original question the designer/ builder from the medieval and gothic periods was called a master builder. The master builder was responsible for absolutely everything that had anything to do with the project. They had a big hand in designing the project. Most of the time it was as the project was being built. What we now refer to as fast track design build. I guess by comparison it was as fast as it could be done given that a horse drawn wagon or sail driven ship is what delivered most building materials.
Master Builders were a rare breed even in those times. As I said they were resposible for arranging everything. They had to find the labor, get them there, house them, feed them, train them if necessary. The entire community was often employeed and many crafstman and laborers were imported from other places. They had to find all the materials, visit sites to inspect the materials, purchase them in person, get them delivered even if it meant building a new road from the point of origin of the materials, maintain all shipping lanes and delivery routes for the entire project. Then on top of all of that get the project completed hopefully before they died. It was not unusual for more than one master builder to work on a project. It depended on the amount of ongoing financing, the complexity of the project, and the ability the owner to make decisions in a timely manner.
As primitive as construction was back then its amazing to think that modern day highrises are built on many of the engineering concepts that were discovered back then. Lets not forget the Romans for most of what we know about infrastructure, structural concrete, and the most important one arches, but we have the Catholic Church of the medieval period to thank for our ability to build modern high rises.
I hope you took notes, there's a test on Thursday.
Dennis,
Good Q!
In states like yours, the archy would need to be in the employ of the design/build firm and control aspects would be resolved within that firm.
It's interesting that you point out that a normal and professional archy would be expected to resolve issues between builder and owner. In my experience, the archy has created more miscommunications and problems than he has resolved. This primadona~ aspect of the position is partly what has led to the rise in popularity of designm/build.
I have also worked a few times with archys who did well in both design and in communications. Not only did they have a willing attitude but these were situations where the owner made clear from the beginning that I (builder) and he ( architect) were on equal footing. WE were able to interact as two professionals respectful of one anothers abilities and purpose. Problems are more common where an archy has the atitude that he is the prime minister and that builders are the servants.
I presume from you very presence here amoung builders, that you are not one of the latter kind.
;).
Excellence is its own reward!
Hi Piffin -
Simply in response to your comment about my being here, I've always enjoyed working with my hands and creating something physical more than the more or less cerebral aspect of construction and design. Thus about 10 years or so ago I left the design profession per se and began working with general contractors and major subcontractors doing what could essentially be shop drawings for their speficic portions of a project. Mostly precast and cast in place concrete. I essentially "build" the building(s) as 3D models using AutoCAD and/or other 3D computer tools, then produce any variety of plan, elevation, section drawings and so forth from the model to assist in the construction of the building.
Topic specific ....
One of the reasons design build was not looked on with a good deal of favor, at least in the late 60's and 70's when I was in school, was that here, and perhaps elsewhere, an architect's fee was and is more often than not based on a precentage of the construction cost.
So let's say an architect decides to offer turnkey services; design plus construction, concept through occupancy. If the design "fee" is based on construction costs, there's less incentive to look for less expensive yet equally serviceable materials or other cost saving options.
Communications is really one of my hot buttons, Piffin. In fact, that's why I've had a successful consulting business for these past years - acting as a 'translator' between the design drawings and what's needed out on the ground to actually produce the structure. I've had numerous discussions with other detailers and trades people who all seem to agree that the quality of design drawings coming out of otherwise highly qualified design firms has been severely degraded in the past 10 or so years. My opinions and those of others for why this may be is not an issue to be discussed in this thread, however.
Suffice it to say, with respect to design build, I personally think it's a viable process. Particularly in the residential segment of construction. I believe, though, that the overall scope of work should be defined at the outset and design fees be clearly stated as a fixed cost and not based on any percentage of the overall construction cost. But I also believe it takes a fairly well educated home owner to work in this situation. He or she would be putting a good deal of faith in the design/build entity with regard to delivering what was promised or expected without a third party overseeing that owner's interests............
Dennis in Bellevue WA
[email protected]
Typically, design/build means exactly as most posters have indicated.
The more successful design builders are builders who have architects on staff or retainers.
Architects are not qualified to build buildings on time or budget.
They draw pretty pictures with some degree of artistic merit. They hand the pretty pictures over to engineers and say please make it stay up. The drawings are then returned to the architects as structures. The base drawings are then forwarded to electrical and mechanical consultants who are instructed to make the building live and breath. The drawings are returned to the architect for final review ( which signals the start of the inevitable war for space vs looks)
At the end of this fiasco, the drawings are handed over to the builder who has to make sense of all this paper work and create a real building in a limited time frame and budget.
Better have the builder head a team of architects, engineers and consultants. Analyse the wants and needs of the client (the guy who's paying for all of this) and ensures that all parties are on board to deliver a finished project on time and budget.
I'll share a little secret with you all...........psssss.......listen up. Architects are only architects. Regardless of the fact that they may have attended a class or two in project management, they still are not qualified in any way shape or form to be or act as project managers. They can't build what they design.
For you math experts out there, remember, half of all architects finished at the bottom half of their class and all were taught by other architects who never had a successful practice.
(how can you tell I ate an architect for lunch today?)
Gabe
Edited 7/29/2003 8:38:29 PM ET by GABE_MARTEL
Architects are only architects. Regardless of the fact that they may have attended a class or two in project management, they still are not qualified in any way shape or form to be or act as project managers. They can't build what they design.
We could extend that argument both ways. That would make a builder only a builder; that they have no training (other than OTJ) in planning the building service before construction. That they "can't design what they build."
Neither argument is Fair, or correct.
Both fail primarily in the definitions. Sure there are architects out there who have no common sense, and are only capable of drawing mansions in the sky. There are some builders out there who are less than great, too. Neither group is one that anyone wants to be associated with.
Now, I took the comment personally, but, please don't take this reply personally. I just want to point out that I know some contractors who are very good designers. just as I know some architects that are darn decent (or at least experienced) builders. (Wrecked angle does leap to my mind.)
A knowledgeable architect is just as common as an honest contractor.
Gabe -
All generalizations are false, by all means! (grin)
I'm an architect. I don't take humbrage to your opinion of architects. In fact, in some respect I share them. But ....
When I apprenticed, I worked with an architect that taught me that :
You have to dimension a site plan so the builder can lay out the building with nothing more than a tape measure, a framing square and a ball of string.
You have to locate the building from at least three points and two adjacent property lines.
You have to show the builder at least *one* way to frame or build something but realize that s/he might be able to do it a better way.
And above all, the wall section you draw is typical only in the location where you drew it - chase that building profile ALL the way around the building and resolve any issues at arise.
So on and so forth.
This was in the days of manual drafting. There was then a long, tried and true process for documenting a construction project. This has changed tremendously since the advent of computer drafting. The old guard was reluctant to embrace this technology. Young kids out of design school had had a modicum of training with this new tool. Drawing quality control in the CAD environment was foreign to the old guard. Thus it all went to hell in a handbasket. And I don't understand why when we have such far more capable tools at our disposal than we had in the "old days".
At least that's my perspective on what's happened in the past 10 years in my area. It may well be different elsewhere.
Why do you think they call it an architectural "practice"?
Because they're still trying to get it right! (grin)
Another one .....
Doctors bury their mistakes; architects grow ivy on theirs.
...........
Dennis in Bellevue WA
[email protected]
We develope an idea that all is black and white sometimes, with hard lines dividing the two camps, pickets out and bayonets fixed...
In this allegory, builders only know how to cut wood and drive nails, having little imagination beyond that or planning ability enopugh to think beyond where to buy the next six pack for the boys.
While architects are psychotic dreamers, drawing pretty pictures of castles in the sky that look great on paper but can never be built on this earth.
Thje reality has quite a few more grey areas where builders have some great design ideas and can visualize encorporating them into a building - and archys have actuially walked over a job once or twice and know how things go together.
success in design/build centers itself in that grey area and weaves the two together in an peace treaty, forming an alliance that can build an empiore of satisfaction for the client instead of leaving him with a shell-holed battlefield to live in..
Excellence is its own reward!
Gabe, the architecture/engineering firm I work for regularly handles construction management on our projects with exceptional results. We design buildings of the highest quality, with artistic merit and will generally exceed the client's expectations while coming in under budget.
We are not without fault but have an excellent reputation of being fair to subs and owner alike. Amazingly, we've found some genuine intelligence among the builders we work with too. :-)> I regularly check with subs for their perspective on design solutions when detailing a building. Most of our projects are commercial but I know another architect here in town that has a similar reputation with residential projects. In fact, he is the president of our local chapter of the Texas Society of Architects.
You've obviously had a few bad experiences with architects. I have the privilege of working with a firm that I believe would change your perspective given the opportunity. Maybe firms like mine are the exception rather than the rule but they are out there. I hope you have the opportunity to work with a few some day.Kevin Halliburton
"I believe that architecture is a pragmatic art. To become art it must be built on a foundation of necessity." - I.M. Pei -
Generalizations are simply that, statements of general observations.
In my entire career I've only met a handful of architects that I would consider to be capable of managing a complex project.
I have, however, met a truck load of highly skilled architects.
Managing projects are part and parcel of the general makeup of any competent GC and I have met a truck load of those, as well.
Architects in general, cannot put their arrogance aside long enough to realize the value of, or the complexity of, project management as a separate craft. Most believe that by simply being the architect, automatically puts them at the top of the building hierarchy, capable of fulfulling all tasks with equal skill.
Such is not the case.
The subject of architects and their roles in modern building construction is often the bases for discussions at our varioust sites. More so over the past decade than ever before.
The company I now work for, is ranked 3rd in Canada for total project value, (up more than 25% over the previous year) and 5th in Canada as being one of the best companies to work for (up by 3 places I believe over the previous year). This company has developed the most comprehensive management program in the world and is a the forefront of project management.
On any given project, I can have 4 or 5 architects with direct involvement to work with. My main assignments for the past few years has been as a closer. I'm the unlucky individual who finishes the project. I have taken over 4 straight projects that had some degree of problems and have brought them in on time and budget.
To do that, I can't mix words with sugar and I'd better be awake from the time I set foot on the project to the time I leave at night.
I normally have 2 hours in before the architects' office opens and 3 hours before the architect is in that office to answer my calls.
The percentage of screwups is normally equally divided between all the active partners in any given project. Architects, engineers, owners, officials, subtrades and us as well.
The point is................no one is immune from screwups. Everyone has a very difficult job to do. No one person can do it all. No one person is capable of doing it all without sacrificing something else, mostly quality.
Project management is the most singular skill that a successful GC must possess in order to survive or better yet to thrive.
Project management cannot be taught in a few years, it takes decades to hone and a strong construction history to be truly skilled.
Would you have a dentist operate on your body? Why not? He's trained in medicine, isn't he? Isn't a doctor a doctor? Aren't they all the same?
I've said it before and I'll repeat it again..........Being a good architect is simply being a good architect and does not automatically give you a free pass to perform project management.
Design built............here to stay.
So am I
Gabe Martel GSC
Project Manager.
"I regularly check with subs for their perspective on design solutions when detailing a building"
I can't think of a single thing that will do more to ingratiate you and earn respect from builders. The first time an archy actually asked me for an option instead of dictating a detail to me, I almost fell off the roof we were standing on.
There was a tricky detail on a lowslope built-up roof and he asked me how I would recommend handling it. I said easy, and sketched out the solution for him, adding that he could find the same in the JM spec book.
He said sounds good, go ahead and do it that way and I'll incorporate that drawing in the documents. Then he thanked me. That openned my eyes to a whole new way of looking at things - especially archys
;).
Excellence is its own reward!