Empowering our clients during construction
by Rob Hankey
Following several recent site visits, the team here have been discussing the merits - for us and clients - of a collaborative journey right through the design to build process. Here, we take a dive into the issues, and highlight the reasons Barefoot recommends keeping your architect involved on site.
Building projects can be pretty daunting; we get this! And we've all heard (or seen) the scare-stories of things going wrong. But they can also be an enormously rewarding process, culminating in a beautiful home that everyone is proud of - and that's what we aspire to create!
The first hurdle is obvious - planning permission - and most people seek to employ an architect to assist with this. That's the design bit, right? Well no - or at least that's not even half of it! Architects' design fees are typically broken down so that Stages 1-3 (to planning) add up to less than Stage 4 (technical design) on its own. This demonstrates the extent of the technical/detailed design work that is involved in a building! It's easy for clients to underestimate this stage but it becomes clear when we start explaining all the things that a contractor will need to price the job. During this stage of our collaborative design process, we can be part of more or less of those decisions, depending on how much assistance the client wants. We empower our clients to feel comfortable making their own design decisions and, if desired, we can assist in the curation of the interior and exterior design using tools such as mood boards, visualisations and 3D models. These can help clients see their choices 'in the round' and make decision making easier.
Stage 5, the on-site stage, is when the contractor becomes the main 'project manager' and is responsible for delivering the project on time, to a set cost, and as per the contract drawings/spec (that are created in Stage 4). In theory, depending on the building contract details, there may not be a need for further architect/consultant input. All decisions could or should have been made at Stage 4. The client could leave the builder to it and, payments aside, return x-months later to a completed building. This obviously requires a lot of trust and in practice, most building contracts require a Contract Administrator (the 'CA' is a neutral 3rd party) to ensure the works proceed in accordance with the contract. This role is mostly seen as a 'safety net' to protect the lay-client who is likely to be unfamiliar with building contract procedures/law. As a result it risks being confrontational but, assisted by our 2-stage tender process, we seek for it to be collaborative!
We often act as the CA as, contrary to the theory, it is very common for a lot of design input to be needed on site and we, as architects, are usually best-placed to assist with this. While the CA role is essential, we see our main focus on site as continuing our co-design process; to ensure the client understands what's going on and feels empowered to make informed decisions (or to understand ones that we are making on their behalf).
While lots of contractors are very good at what they do – carrying out their construction work with diligence and skill, communicating with clients and managing subcontractors and timeframes well – they do not have a focus on design, and have not been party to all the design discussions that have got the project to where it is. To this extent, even with the best will in the world, it is difficult for them to advise a client fully or meaningfully on the aesthetic outcomes of decisions – they are usually coming at it from a practical and cost-effective angle; this is often what's 'easiest' for them, or what they've done before.
Although this 'practical' solution can be valuable input, and we encourage contractor input in any decision-making process, their suggestions are not always the right decision for the client or the design. Quite apart from the fact that it could be contrary to best practice from a technical perspective, it can also weaken a particular aesthetic or spatial effect that the architect and client had worked hard to achieve during Stages 1-4. This may not always be obvious to a client, and without the foresight that comes with experience and design training, these compromises can creep in and really alter the overall affect of the experience of the space/place being created.
The old adage (first coined by Aristotle) that the whole is greater than the sum of its parts is certainly true of architecture too! All those little details, once combined, can add up to something really special if they are all carefully considered and 'sing' together. If they don't, the outcome risks being a bit incoherent or even worse, a bit of a dog’s dinner!
To this end, and to put it bluntly, not paying your architect to help during Stage 5 can waste some of the money you have spent on their fees during Stages 1-4. While this seems a bit extreme, we have seen it happen (especially if the contractor takes it upon themselves to make changes to the design)!
This points toward two crucial factors: 1, what is the aspiration or ambition of the project? And 2, are there going to be many design decisions to make on site?
Aspirations
All clients are different in this regard – though most who approach us are aiming high.
For some people their 'grand designs' project is all about the process – being super involved in the design stages, being hands-on during site works, learning new skills all the way through, and tackling the complexity of a building project first hand. They are seeking our assistance to enable this process and empower them to get the most out of it. They are often happy to independently take on a lot of the decisions about finishes etc as they are confident about what they want and enjoy the hunt for a good bargain. Sometimes they are happy to navigate their contracts with the builder/s (maybe even acting as Main Contractor themselves) but usually they want our assistance to at least set up this relationship; for us to empower them to feel comfortable with the valuation and payment processes.
For others, the outcome is the most important thing – they are seeking a really special final result, and while they want to be involved in the process, their goal is for design excellence! They really value the vision/sensitivity that we bring and recognise, as Mies van der Rohe said, 'God is in the details'. These clients are busy with their day jobs/family lives and are happy to trust our professional judgement; taking our advice and design guidance, but often keen for us to visualise things for them so they can fully understand what we're proposing. They feel empowered and part of the process but don't have to dedicate much time to it. These clients are always keen for us to be involved on site to save them stress and ensure the resultant building is as good as it can be. (Sometimes these clients have a high budget, but sometimes not!)
We are excited about both ‘grand design’ journeys and the other end of the scale (and of course a lot of our clients navigate somewhere in the middle of the two extremes). We see our job as empowering the clients to navigate exactly the right balance of the process/outcome path as they'd like.
Design on site
As indicated above, the whole design process culminates in the construction work and if decisions are needed on site then we feel our involvement is critical to achieve the best result – be that to assist in communicating the options to a client so they feel totally involved, and/or to ensure the design vision is not compromised (unintentionally).
The extent to which design decisions are required on site depends largely on the project type and process. Even with the best intentions and very detailed work at Stage 4, this stage often still contains a huge number of design decisions. This is particularly true of a refurb/retrofit project but even a new-build home on a simple green-field site are likely to have elements of uncertainty until the contractor starts digging.
A lot of clients also struggle to make specification decisions at Stage 4. Sometimes they can't find the time, or don't see the importance, or sometimes they want to wait until they can physically see the space in front of them (rather than use our 3D model and visualisations). While we understand this, decisions don't get easier – in fact they usually get harder and more time-pressured. And when a contractor doesn't know what lies ahead, their work can get harder too, potentially causing delays and additional costs. To this end, we feel that our design involvement on site (along side our role as CA) is just as important as our involvement at Stage 4.
It seems a great shame when a client has this ambition in the first instance, pays an architect to assist in the creation of a great vision, and then tries to save a tiny fraction of the build cost (our fees) by leaving the contractor to advise them on design (changes or otherwise) on site. To not ensure that this ambition and design quality is seen through into the construction phase seems shortsighted. We'd encourage any client to talk to their architect about design ambition and decisions on site. We're pretty certain that our fees are more than justified by saving you money and time, not to mention being invaluable in quality terms of the finished build!