Stewart at Hargrave....uk
Thu Mar 3 20:36:26 CET 2005
On 3 Mar 2005 at 17:23, fostertom at clara....uk wrote:
> Stewart, if you have the belief that there's not much scope for economy
> through architectural effort, then yes, it's hardly worth paying an
> Architect at all. But I know that's not the case.
Of course, but only to a limit. And the issue at stake here is that the architect
concerned seems to be in danger of breaching that limit. If that were not the
case, Valentia wouldn't have a dilemma.
But my main concern was that you seemed to be implying that an architect will
merit greater respect by charging more money. I think that is a rotten and divisive
idea that probably misrepresents most architects; I would be happy to learn that I
> A win-win is entirely possible. The Client (rich or poor) can pay much
> less overall for a much better building
Depending upon the starting point. The reality is that the furher you go down the
economic scale, the fewer and fewer economies there are to be made. A
seriously small budget (let me tell you about it) can mean no house getting built
at all, architect or not. This would seem to be the point at issue here.
> and the ones (including e.g. a
> key Foreman-type) whose flair, enthusiasm and extra effort make
> unconventional routes possible get well recognised and rewarded.
I'm pleased to agree with you. 'Flair', 'enthusiasm', 'extra effort', and
'unconventional' are all amongst my favourite words.
> Sure, accept payment in the form of fringe benefits if agreeable, but
> leave charity and poverty-consciousness out of it.
More information about the Strawbale