What should you look for from your Architect (apart from good design skills)?

I realised today that it been a good few months since I last sat down and gave you the benefit of my 'wisdom'!

In some respects this is a good sign, work has been busy and, thus, my time has been fully occupied moving house whilst juggling the twin demands of being the boss of an increasingly busy practice and being a Dad to two increasingly demanding children. On the other hand, I have a head full of 'stuff' that needs to get out!

One thing that we have noticed in recent months is the wide variety of questions we are being asked when quoting, many of which are completely irrelevant and cannot be of any realistic help when the (prospective) Client is considering who to appoint to deliver their project. In fact, we are often NOT asked the three or four questions that I WOULD ask if I were in their shoes.

So what should you be asking? Here are my suggestions(in no particular order of importance). Your thoughts and comments would, as ever, be appreciated:

1. What are you professional qualifications and/or memberships?

2. Do you carry Professional Indemnity Insurance, if so what's the limit of any one claim?

3. Would you be actually working on my project yourself or would other people in your office actually be doing the work, if so, what are their qualifications and how will you be checking their work?

4. Will your quote break down what you have to do into manageable and clearly explained stages so that, if I decide to stop, I know how much I owe you as well as when you will be invoicing me?

5. Do you have any Clients I can speak to or completed projects I can visit that are similar to my project?

I plan to do a small series of blogs addressing why I think that these are the important questions to ask and expanding upon some of the important things that you should look out for in the answers and why - so watch this space!

Alternatively, you could give us a ring on 01279 444 904 and ask me my own questions and see how I answer them in real life - but only if you have a real project to accompany them!

Why should I ask about my Architect's insurance?

This is the second part of a short series that is trying to give some guidance about the questions you should ask your 'architect' before entrusting them with your most valuable asset - your property!

My introduction to the series can be read here and the first post in the series, dealing with making sure your consultant is properly qualified, can be read here.

So, why should you worry yourself about your consultant's insurance cover - after all they're only doing some drawings aren't they!

Firstly, let explain what Professional Indemnity Insurance (PII) is:

Professional Indemnity insurance is held by many different types of professional to cover them for claims for loss or damage made by a client or third party should they, the professional, make mistakes or are found to have been negligent in some or all of the services they provided.

Registered Architects are required to carry PII as a prerequisite to being registered and must keep up that insurance for a minimum of 12 years after they cease practicing. This is designed to protect you, the client, against the worst case scenario!

So what might go wrong?

Honestly - it's very unlikely that anything will wrong but, in the last few years, we have regularly been contacted by people who have been given incorrect advice by unqualified 'designers' which has led to them building extensions or making alterations to their property without the necessary permissions.

Legislation around building works has become more and more complex over the past few decades. Most projects will need Planning and Building Regulations Approval - both of which areas are constantly changing, in addition you may also need Covenants Approval and/or a Party Wall Award! If your 'consultant' gives you incorrect advice and you don't have all the necessary permissions you might have to undo the work that has been undertaken - a costly experience!

If your 'consultant' or 'designer' does not carry PII, or is reluctant to discuss this matter with you, it should set off alarm bells! It may be an indicator that they are not registered with an appropriate professional body such as the ARB, RIBA, RICS or CIAT.

The level of cover carried should be appropriate for the size of project. Most policies are 'each and every claim' which means that each (unlinked) claim made is dealt with on it's own merits so it is not always necessary to look for cover that exceeds your budget - most architects will ensure that they carry sufficient cover for the type of work they undertake.

So some pointers to conclude:

1. It is very unlikely that you will ever need to make a claim on a reputable, properly qualified, consultant.

2. All qualified, registered, consultants will carry PII and be happy to talk to you about the level of cover carried.

3. Most unqualified 'designers' won't carry PII.

Most importantly:

4. PII is carried to protect YOU!

Asking your consultant for details of their PII cover, at a very basic level, is a great indicator of wether your consultant is truly professional whose advice you can rely on or simply someone doing pretty drawings!

Don't forget - your property is your most valuable asset - can you afford to take the risk of using anyone other than a properly qualified, insured, registered professional?

Why should I ask about my architects qualifications and professional memberships?

This is part one of a small series of posts that all stem from a post a couple of days ago (which you can read here) which suggests five keys questions you should ask when looking for an Architect.

Let me give you a hypothetical situation and then ask you a question:

The scenario: You have been fortunate enough to have been given (or to have bought) a high end sportscar (you can visualise whatever you like at this point). Your car now needs a service and some minor but essential repairs and you would also like a couple of added extras!

The question: do you use the authorised dealer or 'Big Jim' under the arches because he's a fraction of the cost?

Now, I am not fortunate enough to own a high end sportscar (one day *sigh*) but I suspect that whilst 'Big Jim' is cheaper most people would opt to use someone who works one their model of sportscar on a regular basis and knows what they are doing, after all, it's an expensive piece of kit!!!

So, let's look at that scenario again:

You want to do some work on your house (your most expensive asset) do you go to 'Really nice Russ' who works out of his garage conversion or someone who is a qualified professional but is likely to be more expensive?

I think that, when considering any alterations to your property, you should make sure that the person or company you decide to use are suitably qualified and experienced!

That's not to say that you should always use an architect because they may not have the relevant skills for your project! Most good architects will tell you, up front, if you really require their services and, if you don't, should be able to point you in the right direction.

Regardless of which 'brand' of consultant you require, the fact remains that the membership of a relevant professional body gives you some confidence that they are 'up to the job'.

For Architects you should visit the ARB website and check that they are actually Architects (it's an offence to pass yourself off as an Architect if you are not registered with the ARB).

For Surveyors and Structural Engineers, the RICS is a great starting point.

'Architectural Technician' is often a term used by unqualified designers but you can check with the CIAT to see if they are actually technicians or simply unqualified 'designers'.

Finally, a word of warning! There is no such thing as an 'Architectural Designer' - if your consultant says that this is what they are dig a bit deeper, after all you wouldn't trust 'Big Jim' with your Bugatti, why trust 'really nice Russ' with your Home?

Does Michael Gove have a point?

If you read the same type of magazines that I do, you'll know that the Coalition Education Secretary, Michael Gove, has raised the blood pressure of "the architectural community" with some apparently ill considered and uneducated comments about the role (and cost) of Architects within the education sector. At the risk of being lynched by my fellow professionals I have been wondering whether Mr Gove does actually have a valid argument!

Firstly, lets actually consider what he said:

Prior to his ministerial appointment in the new coalition government Mr Gove said Architects were ‘creaming off cash’ under the £55 million BSF programme.

Then, on 2nd June, in the House of Commons and during a debate Mr Gove stated that:

"...I know that Building Schools for the Future makes a distinguished contribution to ensuring that we renovate and refurbish the schools estate, but I have concerns that under my predecessor the programme was not allocating resources to the front line in the most efficient way. It is critical that we ensure that taxpayers’ money is spent on the front line improving education, and not on consultants, architects or bureaucracy...."

Architects Journal

More recently, following a question and answer session at a Free Schools conference on 29th January he said:

“We won’t be getting Richard Rogers to design your school, we won’t be getting any ‘Award winning architects’ to design it, because no-one in this room is here to make architects richer.”

BDonline (Under Creative Commons License: Attribution)

It's interesting to note that the question he was answering was not reported and so his answer could well be out of context, however, on the face of it, the subsequent "outrage" amongst certain quarters appears to be fully justified but is he wrong?

To be clear (before I embark on professional suicide) I am a strong advocate of the argument that Architects can only add value to any project and believe that we, as a profession, have an incredibly important role in lifting the aspiration of students by providing them with buildings that are designed to be fit for purpose and of a higher quality than those that have gone before.

Having said that, I think that Michael Gove is, understandably, upset at how the BSF programme appears to have delivered great value for everyone apart from the Taxpayer. What he fails to understand is that this is not the fault of Architects!!!

It is widely recognised that the BSF procurement process was pretty rubbish (to put it nicely) and that millions were wasted before contracts were even entered into but did we, as a profession, "cream of cash" from the BSF programme?

I don't believe so, however, it is probably accurate to say that the architects involved in BSF were not the most 'cost effective' firms available! In my opinion, the Labour Government was overly obsessed with "starchitecture" as opposed to solid design - the bling over the practical!

I know many architects who have successfully completed a wide variety of education sector projects but who could never get close to a BSF project because they didn't have the 'reputation' in this sector. If the fees charged within the BSF programme were high it is probably simply a reflection of the calibre and profile of the architects appointed!

Taking Mr Gove's statement of June 2010, can we really argue with the sentiment that taxpayers’ money should be spent on the front line improving education, and not on consultants, architects or bureaucracy...."?

Personally, I can't argue with the sentiment of his statement and think that maybe we, as a profession, are being overly sensitive because of his previous statement(s).

The key question for me is how do we ensure that investment in our educational building stock does not compromise investment in the front line? Whilst architects clearly add value, do we always have to use the most expensive firms and build architectural jewels every time or can a more pragmatic and cost effective solution be found?

Finally, Mr Gove had a dig at Richard Rogers and 'award winning architects', predictably, Mr Rogers threw his rattle out of the pram as did a number of other 'leading lights' in our profession - what a surprise!

Is it a crime to suggest that Richard Rogers and his ilk are not the only people that are capable of designing quality schools buildings? I hope not because if it is then I'll be drummed out of the profession before I get chance to pay my 2012 subs!

In my opinion, the obsession with 'starchitects' has caused great damage to us as a profession. Architects are assumed to be raking it in whilst the majority of us struggle to earn a decent living. Mr Gove can, in my opinion, be forgiven for not understanding that you don't have to use Richard Rogers to get good design BUT he shouldn't ignore the valuable contribution that architects make to public building projects.

If the Education Secretary wants to reduce the proportion of school building budgets that get spent on fees then he needs to look at current procurement practices that exclude all bar the largest firms. It's bizarre that, as a practice, we can work on £2million plus design and build schools projects as part of a contractor's design team but can't win a similar sized project in our own right! Relaxing the, frankly draconian, financial and PII minimum requirements will widen the range of practices that can bid for projects and will encourage smaller architectural companies with a track record in education to bring their skills to the table.

If the Education Secretary wants to reduce the overall cost of rebuilding our crumbling schools then he needs to be realistic about how grand he wants new schools building to be. Does every new school have to be an all singing all dancing modern masterpiece or is there scope for them to be more pragmatic exercises in good design?

The Education Secretary must not, however, lose sight of the fact that schools are hugely complex buildings that can't be treated with a "one soloution fits all" approach. Architects are invaluable in assessing and delivering designs that suit the particular needs and requirements of individual clients, regardless of the sector and, if we are to avoid the mistakes of the past, we must be allowed to bring our expertise and knowledge to the table.

So, to conclude:

Did the profession 'cream off cash' in BSF? No but the fees were probably higher than they might have been because the Government wanted 'starchitecture' as opposed to good design.

Is it critical that we ensure that taxpayers’ money is spent on the front line improving education, and not on consultants, architects or bureaucracy? Absoloutely but you can't avoid paying fees for the professionals you need to deliver quality schools buildings for the future!

Does every school need to be designed by Richard Rogers etc? No, in fact having a wider range of architects involved in the schools programme can only benefit both the profession and the taxpayer!

Does Michael Gove have a point? Yes, however his statements before and after show a lack of understanding of the complexity of designing a school and that not all architects are Richard Rogers or charge fees like Richard Rogers but that we CAN deliver quality design when allowed to!

What Michael Gove needs to understand is that Architects are part of the solution (not the problem) but if we continue to get offended by attacks on 'starchitects' and fail to educate our Education Minister about the valuable and irreplacable skills we have as a wider profession we will be stereotyped, sidelined and labelled as an expensive luxury that the country can't afford at this time!