|
|
Post by z00ey on Nov 24, 2005 11:17:21 GMT 1
i'd like to see what your opinions are on architects and their role in your possible building enterprise would be.
feel free to elaborate your answer
tnx
|
|
|
|
Post by pipastro on Nov 24, 2005 12:50:24 GMT 1
Coooool! How do you make a poll?
I like that! Nice idea
|
|
|
|
Post by glen on Nov 24, 2005 13:02:27 GMT 1
I have gone for already in the financial planning, a good architect can stop the builders from cutting corners or missing bits out. Then again it works vice versa as a good builder might be able to draw some of the plans.
|
|
|
|
Post by z00ey on Nov 25, 2005 20:27:07 GMT 1
well, a builder has financial advantages in drawing plans (especially to their liking), as the cost of planning is cca 4-8% of the cost of building... so, in doing cheap (read: flawy) plans he can actually get much more during the actual building...
with architects / planners you definitely know there's no hidden agenda behind.
in financial planning i was refering more to the starting cost estimates (we're talking no project is drawn yet, the bank or investors are looking towards an estimate).
the actual (final) cost estimates can truly be done after the last stage of the planning (main project), and are not done by an architect, but by a potential contractor, as a bid. an architect can help the investor by explaining the differences in various bids, but that's just a little final help.
|
|
|
|
Post by glen on Nov 25, 2005 20:51:01 GMT 1
...slight problem being builders nearly always add costs (not always through their own fault) as the project progresses. So I would still go for that choice. May be its because I've had a good experience with architects. Which one would you go for?
|
|
