Hello everyone,
I have already read some posts in this forum and would like to hear your opinions on the above question regarding the (co-)determination of the floor plan by architects.
Here is the situation:
I am planning to build a house and have designed it using a publicly available 3D house planning software. So, there are basic plans showing the interior walls, doors, room layout, room sizes, and windows. When I went to the initial meeting with the architect on my laptop (no contract signed yet), he smiled and said we need to be careful not to clash over the plans: as an architect, he also has an artistic claim, and the house being built is a reference/advertisement for him. He also wants to take interior photos and have permission to publish them. I am welcome to express my wishes and ideas, but he would like to decide on certain aspects, such as the alignment of various walls. If we want a floor plan created by us to be built exactly as is, we would be better off with a building contractor.
As the client, I don’t want to overstep, but my thought is that I am the one building the house, paying for it, and living in it. The interior design should concern the architect only insofar as he fulfills my requirements or—if I agree—designs according to my general ideas.
On the other hand, one could also see the architect as an artist who receives a commission from me to create a work of art (the house). It is therefore his product, taking my (rough) ideas into account. Like a commission for a painter: I tell the painter I want a vase with red tulips, but he decides how to execute it—the shape of the vase, the number, and especially the arrangement of the tulips.
Is the artistic claim of the architect described above reasonable and something to expect from other architects, or can one usually give an architect exact plans which they only challenge if there are technical building reasons or practical living concerns?
I am open to both approaches described above but would like to know what is generally the norm.
Thank you very much for your assessments!
Best regards, Jersey
I have already read some posts in this forum and would like to hear your opinions on the above question regarding the (co-)determination of the floor plan by architects.
Here is the situation:
I am planning to build a house and have designed it using a publicly available 3D house planning software. So, there are basic plans showing the interior walls, doors, room layout, room sizes, and windows. When I went to the initial meeting with the architect on my laptop (no contract signed yet), he smiled and said we need to be careful not to clash over the plans: as an architect, he also has an artistic claim, and the house being built is a reference/advertisement for him. He also wants to take interior photos and have permission to publish them. I am welcome to express my wishes and ideas, but he would like to decide on certain aspects, such as the alignment of various walls. If we want a floor plan created by us to be built exactly as is, we would be better off with a building contractor.
As the client, I don’t want to overstep, but my thought is that I am the one building the house, paying for it, and living in it. The interior design should concern the architect only insofar as he fulfills my requirements or—if I agree—designs according to my general ideas.
On the other hand, one could also see the architect as an artist who receives a commission from me to create a work of art (the house). It is therefore his product, taking my (rough) ideas into account. Like a commission for a painter: I tell the painter I want a vase with red tulips, but he decides how to execute it—the shape of the vase, the number, and especially the arrangement of the tulips.
Is the artistic claim of the architect described above reasonable and something to expect from other architects, or can one usually give an architect exact plans which they only challenge if there are technical building reasons or practical living concerns?
I am open to both approaches described above but would like to know what is generally the norm.
Thank you very much for your assessments!
Best regards, Jersey
Copyright... in English, copyright law.
You don’t need to go to court for that; there are laws in place.
When an artist wants to express themselves freely, they usually do so between commissioned projects. Through their skills, they promote themselves. A visual artist typically does this with their portfolio or work samples.
Commissions are accepted as a means of making a living.
If an artist accepts a commission that doesn’t fit their “artistic concept,” they are not obliged to promote the product for themselves afterward. So, those who don’t want to, already have. This architect is probably fed up at the moment.
However, he may be exactly what the original poster is looking for...
My opinion: just because the gentleman has clearly presented his style, it doesn’t necessarily mean there is any dislike between the original poster and the architect.
I couldn’t read that impression in the initial post either... though I haven’t scrolled back to check.
You don’t need to go to court for that; there are laws in place.
When an artist wants to express themselves freely, they usually do so between commissioned projects. Through their skills, they promote themselves. A visual artist typically does this with their portfolio or work samples.
Commissions are accepted as a means of making a living.
If an artist accepts a commission that doesn’t fit their “artistic concept,” they are not obliged to promote the product for themselves afterward. So, those who don’t want to, already have. This architect is probably fed up at the moment.
However, he may be exactly what the original poster is looking for...
My opinion: just because the gentleman has clearly presented his style, it doesn’t necessarily mean there is any dislike between the original poster and the architect.
I couldn’t read that impression in the initial post either... though I haven’t scrolled back to check.
An architect is definitely capable of effectively implementing described ideas and a written floor plan—better than a layperson. They have studied this and have the experience...
I don’t understand the responses here that seem to push [USER=44006]@Jersey to replace the architect, even though the pantry with a slanted door planned by the original poster might end up ruining the entire kitchen, just because [USER=44006]@Jersey can’t do it any better.
According to your advice, they should go to a yes-man or rubber-stamper.
If I were looking for an architect whose work I like and who holds themselves to a high standard, someone they wouldn’t be ashamed of after completing their work, I would try to build a good relationship so that my house becomes a highlight through their contribution.
I don’t understand the responses here that seem to push [USER=44006]@Jersey to replace the architect, even though the pantry with a slanted door planned by the original poster might end up ruining the entire kitchen, just because [USER=44006]@Jersey can’t do it any better.
According to your advice, they should go to a yes-man or rubber-stamper.
If I were looking for an architect whose work I like and who holds themselves to a high standard, someone they wouldn’t be ashamed of after completing their work, I would try to build a good relationship so that my house becomes a highlight through their contribution.
Wonderful story.
So you go to the architect with your cobbled-together floor plan and are surprised that he doesn’t want to build it just like that? That actually speaks well of him.
You start with a room program and certain ideas or wishes for the design. Then you also consider the zoning plan (building permit / planning permission) and the characteristics of the plot and its surroundings.
From this, the architect creates one or several drafts. NOW you can discuss with him what you might want to do differently.
If you want to have your self-designed dollhouse built, you go to the developer (builder).
I fully agree with the architect in this matter.
So you go to the architect with your cobbled-together floor plan and are surprised that he doesn’t want to build it just like that? That actually speaks well of him.
You start with a room program and certain ideas or wishes for the design. Then you also consider the zoning plan (building permit / planning permission) and the characteristics of the plot and its surroundings.
From this, the architect creates one or several drafts. NOW you can discuss with him what you might want to do differently.
If you want to have your self-designed dollhouse built, you go to the developer (builder).
I fully agree with the architect in this matter.
apokolok schrieb:
So you go to the architect with a hastily put-together floor plan and then wonder why he doesn’t want to build it just like that? That definitely speaks in favor of the architect.
You go to the architect with a room program and certain ideas or wishes. Then there are the zoning regulations (building permit / planning permission) and the characteristics of the plot and surroundings.
From that, the architect creates one or more drafts for you. ONLY THEN can you discuss with him what you might want to do differently. Was that really the issue? Hardly anyone would object to that, right? From my understanding, the point was that the architect assumes he can make decisions that don’t have to be discussed, but rather must simply be accepted by the client—without explaining the consequences, the ideas behind them, or what happens if things are done differently. The attitude seems to be: since this serves as advertising for me, I do it this way, no matter how you, dear client, want or need it.
From my perspective, that was the point being debated, and the reason why some here (including myself) are NOT on the planner’s side.
For me, it is obvious and the normal process when working with an architect to go to him, have him make proposals, have him explain the reasoning, and then evaluate whether to follow his advice (and in some cases be convinced by the architect’s experience) or to prefer doing it differently. That is exactly why I go to an architect: to get ideas and impulses, to be alerted to my own flawed thinking, and to get alternative solutions.
But always in dialogue, not with the attitude: I am an artist, this is my advertisement, so I put something in front of you and you, dear client, must accept it without objection—oh yes, and thanks for your money for my advertisement. That was at least the impression I got from the mentioned architect.
If such dialogue and the experience of a grounded architect are not wanted, then a general contractor or design-build contractor is probably the better option—I agree with you there. But that was not the point, at least not how I perceived it.
ypg schrieb:
Some of you might want to read Jersey’s thread again. Well then, let’s take a look ;-)
Jersey schrieb:
[...] we have to be careful not to clash with the plans: as an architect, he also has an artistic vision, and the house being built is a reference/advertisement for him. [...]
I am welcome to share my ideas and wishes, but, for example, he might want to decide on the straight alignment of certain walls.“...not to clash...”, “...an artistic vision...”, “...he might want to decide on XYZ...”
To me, this reads as if he would like to personally MAKE CERTAIN DECISIONS, to realize his artistic VISION, and not have the client’s plans interfere with him. What else do you understand from this if not exactly what is written here? ;-)
ypg schrieb:
It’s amazing how much room for interpretation two sentences from the architect leave, which were only paraphrased by the original poster. Isn’t that a contradiction? Why wouldn’t paraphrasing create room for interpretation? In fact, it encourages it, precisely because the exact wording is missing and only a paraphrase is given. From my point of view, this is neither surprising nor unexpected, but rather quite normal. Perception is rarely objective, and communication always happens on multiple levels—hello Friedemann Schulz von Thun...
Similar topics