Should architects work for free?

Recently a numbers of architects (Mark Stephens and Paul McNally) have written about the need for architects to avoid doing work for free. The confusing part for me was how is an architect/designer supposed to get new projects and clients if they are going to charge for their initial consultations. The RIAI process of selecting your architect first and then creating your architectural brief only compounded the matter.

This got me thinking about how this would work in the context of helping a potential client to develop their architectural brief which I wrote about in my last post.

I was away on holidays last week in West Cork (glorious) and as I’m not one for reading fiction, I brought my copy of The Startup Owner’s Manual along to reread. As I reread the section on Customer Discovery it suddenly struck me that the two processes are very similar.

An Architectural Brief is a Problem Definition

First off, put yourself in the shoes of the client. They have an idea for a project (new house, extension, whatever) but they don’t know how to go about getting the project up and running. What will they do next?

The creation of the Architectural Brief is the obvious first step as the clients needs to have the project requirements documented before they start talking to architects. The Architectural Brief can be viewed as the problem definition for their project. It’s nothing more.

Once the initial brief has been defined by the client it then needs to be validated and checked. A brief is not worth the paper it’s written on unless the client takes it and discusses it with other project stakeholders such as their families, friends and professionals such as interested architects and/or engineers and to get their feedback. At this stage the client should not be looking for “solutions” to their brief but rather valuation that what is outlined in the brief is reasonable and buildable for the specified budget.

So for example if the client wants to build a 300 m² Passive House for €200,000 then an architect  may say that in their experience this is unrealistic and that the client will need to reduce the size of the house to match the budget or else increase the budget. There is no point in the client going any further if there are glaring contradictions in the brief. Issues like this can be addressed by following an iterative process as I proposed previously.

Architects should think of their involvement in the review of the Architectural Brief as their interview for the Role of Project Architect for the project. And yes it should be done for free.

Select your architect

With the architectural brief defined and agreed, the client can then select their architect. This step should be straight forward as discussions will have previously taken place with all of the interested architects and details such as fees and services included will have been discussed and agreed.

With the architect selected and contracts signed then the project can progress to the next stage.

Project Design is the Solution

The project design is the critical piece as it’s where the architects skill and experience comes to the fore. The architect takes the brief and converts it into a design which meets the client requirements and can be built within the specified budget. This should be an iterative process where the architect starts with simple massing exercises which then evolve into a complete design. The reason for doing this is that it minimises waste and avoids delays due to poor design decisions and rework.

In my own house I think there were 7-8 designs and redesigns before we agreed the final one. The final design was then documented and submitted for planning.

Should architects work for free?

In summary I don’t think Architects should charge for the initial consultations when all they are doing is reviewing the initial Architectural Brief for the client, validating the details and interviewing for the Role of Project Architect. The client should not be looking for solutions at this stage but rather for validation on what they would like to have designed and built. It is up to the architect to ensure that they do not get involved in project design when they are reviewing the architectural brief.

If the architectural brief can be separated from the project design as described and the client can be educated that this is the process to follow, then I think this question of ‘Should architects work for free?’ will resolve itself.

I’d love to hear your comments and feedback.