Architect designed is not more expensive

Exploding the myth that things architects design are expensive.

The Report to the Ministerial Taskforce on Affordable Housing by the Department of Urban Services ACT Government 2002.
states:
The preference (of the Department of Housing) to use architects increases costs.
- architect designed houses are intrinsically more expensive
(in 2001-02, an average cost of about $1,800 per sqm compared to the ACT average cost of $1,250 per sqm)

The above is fact. However, the overall view presented is a distortion of the real situation.

The $1,800 per sqm for a DOH building cannot be compared to the average house. It is not comparing 'apples' with 'apples'. The DOH specification is more rigorous, they require quality builders who maintain greater levels of paperwork and the insistence on finishes with reduced maintenance, all which means that it done to a higher quality than average.

Project home companies may quote figures around $900 sqm. This price includes minimal finishes, the cheapest fittings, minimal framing, no floor finishes except in the wet areas and no ground works at all. It could be a significant percentage more on top for the footings. Any upgrade in finishes is usually at a considerable cost. They have one advantage, as they can offer continuing work they can employ trades at a lower cost. But the trades will tend to visit once and move on to the next job, which is fine if they get it right.

The cost per m2 conceals another issue. An architect can design so that you feel it is large with a very small area. They know how to place windows to gain a flow of spaces. And another thing, most architects recognise the need for storage. A study in housing in Britain found that there was no relationship between real house size and the perception the house was “big enough”. They did, however, find a correlation between “big enough” and having sufficient storage. Project homes notoriously have very little storage, as joinery costs money.

A larger number of rooms may not correspond to maximum functionality. If a room is not conveniently located or if it is too small, or does not have enough light it will not be utilized. If that room was 9m2 in a $1200 per m2 house, then the owner has paid $10,800 for something that is not of much value. Some houses have open inefficient 9m2 storage rooms masquerading as bedrooms, the storage capacity which could have been better accommodated in a $2,000 joinery unit!

Another aspect to size is that maximum area may not give maximum functionality. A series of large open spaces really does not accommodate much furniture. A smaller rectangular space which has longer well thought out walls may allow just as much, or more, furniture than a lager square space, as the walls and the centre of the space are most used for furniture.

Project homes in Australia are unique in their volume. They have generated an advantage in that their mass production has generated a mass produced market for any items they use. Mass produced items are cheaper. It means you have what your neighbour has. Anything that expresses your individuality will cost more.

The per metre squared rates also conceal the fact that there is no one cost for a building. For the very same plan, elevations and specification the price can vary by 50% from one builder to the next. Recent prices for a concrete slab on ground ranged from under $10,000 to $18,000. Same slab. Tiling labour from $15 per m2 to $30 per m2. Same job. There is no guarantee the higher price is better quality. A tradesperson who does it once and right and is efficient enough to handle a lot of jobs may be able to offer cheaper price. But then they may run a late model truck and have a house in an expensive suburb they are paying off.

In summary, when quality and the desire for individuality is accounted for the difference between an architect's design and mass produced housing is quite small. The real advantage is that you get a building that is suitable for you, that makes maximum use of the space and of the site.

And there is always the choice between small and good quality or big and cheap. A house is really a compromise between cost, quality and time. The mass market has opted for low cost and time. Quality therefore suffers. The clients the architectural profession has usually opt for quality. Overall figures such as those quoted above therefore reflect this fact.

To confirm this I have projects now being built for $1,100-$1,200 per sqm by a mass housing company. The specification of finishes and such items as the window area are 'average' reflecting the price. I have another being built for $1,600 per m2. It is medium quality in finish. I put the same time into the design of both. Both are arranged spaces that respond to the individual client needs and the site. Both are one-off designs. Lastly one owner builder is doing it themselves and it looks like being a quality finish for under $1,100. They have had to pay a huge penalty to achieve this, in the time they have put into it.

Time, Cost, Quality. You can't have the best of them all.