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
I am building with an architect and have fairly specific ideas, but I want him to challenge them. After all, I only have ideas, he has the experience.
For aspects I am not passionate about, I am happy to accept his solutions. I don’t want to study every single screw either.
He also has some small “artistic” approaches, but if I say no, that means no.
That aside, it’s the small details that really make the difference between a standard box and an “architect-designed house,” as it’s often called when selling later on.
A 130m² (1,400 sq ft) gable roof can also be bought off the shelf, in my opinion.
I would be cautious with someone who overestimates the artistic aspect too much (that was the impression in the example). If artistic ambition means more than the client’s budget, it becomes difficult (and it’s too late then).
For aspects I am not passionate about, I am happy to accept his solutions. I don’t want to study every single screw either.
He also has some small “artistic” approaches, but if I say no, that means no.
That aside, it’s the small details that really make the difference between a standard box and an “architect-designed house,” as it’s often called when selling later on.
A 130m² (1,400 sq ft) gable roof can also be bought off the shelf, in my opinion.
I would be cautious with someone who overestimates the artistic aspect too much (that was the impression in the example). If artistic ambition means more than the client’s budget, it becomes difficult (and it’s too late then).