Why Do Architect-Designed Projects Seem to Cost More?
Good design and expensive finishes aren't the same thing
Architect-designed homes and renovations are often associated with higher construction costs.
There are good reasons why some architect-designed projects do cost more. But it isn't simply because an architect was involved.
Often, the difference is between a project designed around a standard building product and one designed around a particular client, property and set of priorities.
Understanding that distinction can help you decide where additional expenditure will genuinely improve your home — and where it won't.
How project builders keep costs down
Volume and project builders can offer relatively competitive construction rates because they have developed a highly controlled way of delivering houses.
A typical project may use:
standard floor plans and construction details
familiar structural systems
standard window and door sizes
nominated suppliers
predetermined fixture and finish ranges
standard kitchens and bathrooms
limited material selections
established subcontractor arrangements
minimum or standardised construction solutions.
There is nothing inherently wrong with this approach. Standardisation creates efficiency.
It also means there are fewer variables for the builder to price and manage.
Where the site, client's requirements and standard house design align well, it can be a very cost-effective way of building.
What changes with an architect-designed project?
An architect generally starts somewhere different.
Rather than beginning with an existing house design and adapting the client to it, we start with the property, the people who will live there and what they're trying to achieve.
That can lead to decisions about:
orientation and natural light
views and privacy
breezes and cross-ventilation
connections between inside and outside
ceiling heights and volumes
how rooms relate to each other
how the house responds to slope
retaining valuable parts of an existing home
window placement and size
materials and detailing
how the house may adapt as its occupants' needs change.
Some of those decisions cost more.
Many don't.
A better-positioned window, for example, doesn't necessarily cost more than a poorly positioned one.
Neither does arranging rooms to capture prevailing breezes, making better use of an existing view or designing circulation so that less floor area is wasted.
Design quality isn't simply something you buy by spending more money.
Where the additional cost often comes from
The perception that architectural projects are expensive is partly because published architectural projects often represent the upper end of the market.
They may include extensive glazing, bespoke joinery, natural stone, complex structural solutions, custom windows, expensive fixtures and highly detailed finishes.
Those things cost money.
But they are specification decisions, not prerequisites for architectural design.
There is no reason every architect-designed home needs a $90,000 kitchen, imported tiles or custom-made windows.
The challenge is deciding where the money matters.
Minimum compliance and design quality are different things
Building regulations establish minimum requirements for matters such as structure, safety, health, amenity and energy efficiency.
They are an essential baseline.
But complying with the minimum requirements doesn't necessarily answer questions such as:
Does the house make the best use of the site?
Are the rooms in the right places?
Does it receive good natural light?
Can it capture useful breezes?
Does the kitchen relate properly to the living and outdoor areas?
Will the house still work as the family's needs change?
Are we spending the construction budget on the things that will make the greatest difference?
These are design questions rather than simply compliance questions.
You can have good design without specifying everything at the top end
This is where we think there is considerable opportunity.
If the budget is limited, we would generally prefer to protect the fundamental design decisions and find savings in specification before compromising the things that are difficult to change later.
For example, you might retain:
good orientation
a well-considered floor plan
appropriate room proportions
natural light and ventilation
connection to the garden
useful ceiling volumes
carefully positioned windows
efficient circulation
while choosing:
standard-sized aluminium windows rather than custom systems
engineered stone alternatives or laminate rather than premium stone
standard-format tiles rather than expensive imported products
good-quality proprietary cabinetry rather than elaborate bespoke joinery
standard plumbing fixtures
economical flooring
simpler external materials
standard construction details where they don't compromise the design.
These decisions can have a significant effect on cost without necessarily having the same effect on the experience of living in the house.
Spend money where it's difficult to change later
One useful way to think about the budget is to distinguish between the bones of the house and the things that can relatively easily be upgraded later.
Getting the orientation, structure, floor levels, room layout, ceiling heights, openings and relationship to outdoor spaces right is important because changing them later can be difficult and expensive.
A tap, light fitting or appliance can usually be replaced.
Moving a staircase, changing a floor level or relocating an entire living area is another matter.
So when a budget needs to be reduced, the answer doesn't necessarily have to be “make the house smaller and less interesting.”
Sometimes the better question is:
What can we simplify without losing the design?
Simplicity can be architectural
Cost-conscious design doesn't have to look cheap.
Simple forms, straightforward roof structures, repeated window sizes, limited material palettes and conventional structural systems can all help control construction costs.
In fact, restraint can often produce stronger architecture.
Complexity should have a reason.
If an expensive structural solution creates an important view, improves the way the house works or solves a difficult site condition, it may represent good value.
Complexity simply for its own sake usually doesn't.
Renovations make this even more important
With renovations, part of the architect's job is deciding where not to build.
Retaining useful rooms, working with existing structure and finding better ways to use the floor area already available can sometimes achieve more than simply adding another 50 square metres.
Conversely, trying to retain something that requires extensive structural work and compromises the eventual design can be a false economy.
The objective isn't necessarily to minimise the cost per square metre.
It's to get the most useful result from the overall budget.
Start with a budget, not a specification
We don't think the answer is to design an unrestricted project and then try to make it affordable afterwards.
Budget should be part of the design discussion from the beginning.
Our Project Definition process establishes the property, objectives, priorities and likely budget before progressing into detailed design.
During concept design, we prepare an Opinion of Probable Construction Cost (OPC) so that design and budget can be considered together.
Where a misalignment is identified, we refine the design or project scope while changes are quick and inexpensive to make, before progressing to the next stage.
That allows us to ask a much more useful question than simply:
“How cheaply can we build it?”
Instead:
“Where should we spend the available budget to make the biggest difference?”
Comments