News:

Welcome to the Golf Club Atlas Discussion Group!

Each user is approved by the Golf Club Atlas editorial staff. For any new inquiries, please contact us.


archie_struthers

  • Karma: +0/-0
What are architecture fees circa 2013
« on: November 14, 2013, 09:05:38 PM »
 ??? :D ???

Just wondering ?   Particularly thinking of youngsters  looking to become an architect .

Tom_Doak

  • Karma: +2/-1
Re: What are architecture fees circa 2013
« Reply #1 on: November 15, 2013, 06:19:36 AM »
Archie:

My rule of thumb is that every number published in the golf business is a lie, so, take everything said here with a grain of salt.

Fees are coming down, but it's hard to tell how much because there is so little work.  Five years ago I had an idea what others were charging and could slot myself in based on my peer group ... nowadays it's like trying to buy a house in a town where nothing has sold for a long time.  There aren't many comps.

In general, the range is somewhere between $250,000 and $1,000,000.  I'm sure there are some deals done for less than $250k, by guys who want to get their name out there and haven't had the chance.  I told one of my interns yesterday that for the right starter job, he should be willing to charge for construction, and do the design work for free or for some sort of long-term royalty.  But that's only to get one's foot in the door; if you charge less than $250k as a baseline, you'd need to keep busy every year.  There aren't many architects staying afloat on new projects these days.  For most, you should be asking about fees for consulting work.


Mike_Young

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re: What are architecture fees circa 2013
« Reply #2 on: November 15, 2013, 07:14:25 AM »
TD,
I saw a signature a few months ago offer to do 4 courses for under 2 mill for the same client...

I also think what you mention about charging fro construction is the coming thing...there may be a token fee for routing etc but if one can do their own construction he will be fine IMHO.
"just standing on a corner in Winslow Arizona"

Sean Leary

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re: What are architecture fees circa 2013
« Reply #3 on: November 15, 2013, 09:33:37 AM »
What does the fee cover besides the design? Any labor, travel etc or is that all on top of the fee? I have always wondered that.

Jeff_Brauer

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re: What are architecture fees circa 2013
« Reply #4 on: November 15, 2013, 09:42:29 AM »
I agree with TD to take things with a grain of salt.  At dinner with a golf writer the other night, he got a text from someone asking the same question, with the caveat that a "name" architect (an unnamed name, at that....) quoted $2M, $1.5M, or $1M, depending on the level of involvement of the principal.  (Wonder who that was......hmmm) but the texter didn't believe it.

Also, as TD notes, fees are all over the map.  However, I still believe most of us work under the sort of set standard of engineers of about 7% of construction.  GCA has always been more prone to cost cutting, and I see several jobs go at fees of as low as equivalent 3-4%, with 5% more common.  With a new course costing about $4.5M or so, it should be over $300K, but its often under $200K.

Given remodels are usually less expensive, but probably more detail work for architects, they turn out to be average to bad financial deals.  Greens and tees can be rebuilt for under $2M, and total remodels rarely go over $4M, although, they certainly can be higher in some areas, so even at 7%, the remodels usually bring in $150-$250K.  Of course, if there is a separate irrigation design contract, then your 4-7% may only be based on $2.5-3M of that $4M-$4.5M.  You can do the math for the range of fees......

Just to be clear, I propose lump sum fees.  Its just that everyone seems to understand that the gca fee can rarely exceed certain basic limits and keep the budget sustainable.  Celebrity fees are always higher, of course.  That said, earlier this year, I lost a master plan to a bigger name architect based on fee, just to prove the "all over the map" statement.....

Talking with an irrigation designer earlier this week, we realized that our fees really haven't gone up much in actual dollars over our 20 year relationship.  $200K in 1993 was a lot better deal than $200K in 2013, that's for sure.  Fees back then made me (put in current parlance)  a 1 to 5 per center back then,  but not now.  
Jeff Brauer, ASGCA Director of Outreach

Tom_Doak

  • Karma: +2/-1
Re: What are architecture fees circa 2013
« Reply #5 on: November 15, 2013, 12:26:56 PM »
I might be the leader in the clubhouse in fees, as a percentage of construction costs.  Luckily, my clients don't think of it that way, they look at the big picture of how much it costs (including fees) to deliver the product they want.  The fact that we can keep construction costs down allows us to keep our fees high -- as it should.

Of course, my fees pay for more guys on site than most provide.

Jeff_Brauer

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re: What are architecture fees circa 2013
« Reply #6 on: November 15, 2013, 12:34:05 PM »
Tom,

Yeah they do.  I remember "the old days" where KN and before them, Robert Bruce Harris charged 5% plans and 5% on site representative, or 10% total.  You might easily get 10% in general, but probably spend 3% on plans and 7% on site time from architectural staff, which also double in some cases as construction staff.  Overall, you might actually be charging at a very good value rate.
Jeff Brauer, ASGCA Director of Outreach

Frank Pont

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re: What are architecture fees circa 2013
« Reply #7 on: November 15, 2013, 02:23:12 PM »
I'm in the camp of Jeff in that I charge fixed fees, since (like Tom) I believe percentage fees give a totally wrongwrong incentive.

Currently my new builds are between $ 250-350 k, a detailed renovation/restoration plan around $15 k, charge per r3novation hole being on site $2-10 k depending on the scope of work, and a per day rate of $2 k (I virtually never charge a per day rate). As Tom rightfully states you have to compare oranges with oranges, these are just fees for my work, no other involvement.

Fees in Europe have traditionally been much lower that the US. To give an example when I started 10 years ago, the two leading Dutch archies were charging below 100 k per new build, but doing 3-4 at the same time, with predictable effects on quality. The market in Holland now has evolved to a higher quality bunch, focussing more on single projects and charging decent prices.


Ally Mcintosh

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re: What are architecture fees circa 2013
« Reply #8 on: November 15, 2013, 02:33:42 PM »
EIGCA suggests a number of methods of charging but seem to primarily favour a fee structure much along the same lines as RIBA / RIAI etc... The architectural world seems to have always based its numbers on %ge fees (the EIGCA suggesting somewhere between 8% and 12%).

I've never cared for that approach.

I prefer lump sum - likely based on stage payments - or straight reimbursable (i.e. time & materials).

Frank Pont

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re: What are architecture fees circa 2013
« Reply #9 on: November 15, 2013, 02:40:48 PM »
EIGCA suggests a number of methods of charging but seem to primarily favour a fee structure much along the same lines as RIBA / RIAI etc... (the EIGCA suggesting somewhere between 8% and 12%).

I've never cared for that approach.

It was one of the reasons for me not to become a member of EIGCA.

I can remember a senior EIGCA member came to Edinburgh to give our class a lecture on the GCA business in which he explained that doing design build was not acceptable because you had to be able to give your client independent advice, and then 2 minutes later stating with a straight face that the best way to calculate fees was a percentage of construction costs.  BIZAR.....

Ally Mcintosh

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re: What are architecture fees circa 2013
« Reply #10 on: November 15, 2013, 02:56:52 PM »
EIGCA suggests a number of methods of charging but seem to primarily favour a fee structure much along the same lines as RIBA / RIAI etc... (the EIGCA suggesting somewhere between 8% and 12%).

I've never cared for that approach.

It was one of the reasons for me not to become a member of EIGCA.

I can remember a senior EIGCA member came to Edinburgh to give our class a lecture on the GCA business in which he explained that doing design build was not acceptable because you had to be able to give your client independent advice, and then 2 minutes later stating with a straight face that the best way to calculate fees was a percentage of construction costs.  BIZAR.....

I agree Frank.... Although there is an obvious distinction between the two.... With Design/Build, there are much bigger sums at stake and dishonesty / profiteering could result in skimping on construction and an inferior product (although any architect who would be willing to put his name behind an inferior product for a few extra bucks would want his head examined)..... With %ge fees, dishonesty / profiteering would result in driving costs up and effectively wasting the client's money. However the final product shouldn't suffer.... In short, the quality check isn't there with DB but percentage fee doesn't exactly encourage value engineering

EIGCA have a clear code that believes in architecture as a pure profession though. Based on independent advice / consultation that isn't conflicted.

Personally, whilst I have no interest in the full design/build model (which the EIGCA would kick me out over anyway), I fully believe in a model which combines an all-in service including construction management and shaping.

« Last Edit: November 16, 2013, 04:09:21 AM by Ally Mcintosh »

Jeff_Brauer

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re: What are architecture fees circa 2013
« Reply #11 on: November 15, 2013, 04:09:48 PM »
While there is potential for abuse in any system, and % of fee construction is one of them, its not all bad as some presume.

For instance, any given % number should remain viable over time, as in 7% of a current $4M project should be about the same as 7% of a $2M project in 1985.  And, as long as the budget rises because of owner's wishes, it compensates the gca for more time invested, generally.  

To be extreme, if the owner decided on 20 ft wide or golf plated cart paths, it doesn't cost the architect a whole lot more.  On the other hand, a course with a full cart path system vs. none naturally causes us to spend more time on the design and construction evaluations.  (Actually, I hate to read concrete design specs, but it comes with the territory.....)

There are ways to control the architect (contractually) from purposely over spending.And, presuming the construction fee was a bid amount and lump sum, it should be a good reflection of the architects work.  Frankly, and as noted, the real potential for funny business comes in the design-build arrangement.  In the traditional 3 part - Owner owns-Architect Designs and Evaluates Contractor for Owner- and Builder builds, there is some check and balance not possible with only two parties.  Of course, many are totally honest.  Others are not.

There are ways to control the architect (contractually) from purposely over spending.

For that matter, I could name several financial questions about the architect shaping projects, too.  Typically, on a lump sum construction bid, contractors such as Landscapes, Wadsworth, etc. bid about $200K.  And they are pretty open that they put a lot of profit in there, where it is more "protected" from line item budget cuts.

Where architects have carved out that shaping portion for their own shapers, I have seen many bids of generally twice that, driving up construction costs.  I am not saying anyone is dishonest (I have only known a few truly dishonest folks in this profession over 35 years) and there are a few very real reasons for the higher price:

* As it turns out, architects like making money on shaping just as much as contractors.

* Given the emphasis on getting it just right, over speed, they probably they aren't as concerned with efficiency, either.

* They can't share any other construction overhead in preparing their price for construction shaping services, which naturally sort of drives up the cost.  It naturally costs more to have two construction companies doing similar things.

* Add in that the general contractor needs to put whatever profit he placed in shaping (again, usually a lot - hard to cut and low risk activity) he has to put that back in somewhere.

* Also, with many earth movers, they kind of shape generally (within a foot or so) in mass excavation.  The shaping price to tweak it to the magic that is golf features is probably not as much work as a portion of the whole as the fee for separating it out typically is.

* Lastly, separate contractors with varying motivations can cause friction on the construction site, not to mention construction management problems. I have seen some architects write the construction contracts so the general takes all the responsibility for schedule, but then have its crew take vacations, etc.  Clearly, it is best to have single point responsibility for a multi million dollar construction project.  What's the old saying...Two people in charge is worse than no one in charge?

Again, many good architects do it this way and good people can navigate the problems for a reasonable price.  But, the above points are something to consider for most owners when they select a construction method.  Basically, it all comes down to people. 
Jeff Brauer, ASGCA Director of Outreach

archie_struthers

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re: What are architecture fees circa 2013
« Reply #12 on: November 17, 2013, 03:55:00 PM »
 8) ??? ;)

Thanks for the info , good work if you can get it . Has to be pretty expensive to keep shapers and the like working full time in the new economy. If you have the superintendent on board and he is good, you can get some real value out of his work that might be assumed by the club / client . Our super Steve Lane at Twisted dune was great in this regard .

Jeff_Brauer

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re: What are architecture fees circa 2013
« Reply #13 on: November 17, 2013, 06:17:57 PM »
Archie,

Heck, its hard to keep draftsman/apprentice architects on staff in this economy, too.  Same problems as construction crews.....just move the decimal point one to the left.
Jeff Brauer, ASGCA Director of Outreach

Tags:
Tags:

An Error Has Occurred!

Call to undefined function theme_linktree()
Back