Practical Talks With Home-builders 
THE MATTER OF AN ARCHITECT’S FEE—WHAT IT AMOUNTS TO AND WHAT IT COVERS 
—THE DESIRABILITY OF A WRITTEN AGREEMENT BETWEEN CLIENT AND ARCHITECT 
by Alexander Buel Trowbridge 
[This is the fourth of a series of intimate helpful talks with those who are about to build. The aim is to offer untechnical suggestions to prospective 
home-makers in the hope that many of the common mistakes and difficulties may be avoided through foi eknowledge. The talks are written for those of 
moderate means rather than for those to whom economy is no object.] 
NE of the important items of expense which 
should be included in the sum total of a home¬ 
builder’s calculations is the architect’s fee. If 
the owner is the kind of person who is easily 
satisfied with that sort of thing he can buy 
ready-made house designs and working draw¬ 
ings from plan factories. These factories state 
in their catalogues the cost of each house ad¬ 
vertised and they gravely assure the resident 
of Michigan as well as the man in Florida that 
the dwelling will cost so and so, disregarding 
entirely the differences in cost of materials and labor in these 
communities. If, on the other hand, the owner wants a home to 
fit the especial needs of himself and family and particularly if he 
wishes to take into account the many seemingly extraneous items 
that must of necessity be included in a complete home, he not 
only needs an architect but he should employ a good one at a good 
price. It is no longer possible to secure a first-class architect for 
the fees that were in common use fifteen or twenty years ago. 
To-day the minimum charge of the leading architects for all 
services, including supervision, is 6 per cent of the finished cost. 
Many architects charge from jh to io per cent for country house 
work and have no trouble in collecting such fees. A mistake is 
often made, equally by client and architect, in avoiding a frank 
discussion of fees during the first negotiations. This may be 
due to the assumption on the part of the architect that his fees 
are well enough known, or it may be due to a notion on the part 
of the client that the old fee of 5 per cent is enough to cover all 
matters which may arise. Most architects have a printed sched¬ 
ule of charges which gives in detail the fees for various types 
of buildings and states the manner in which payments are made. 
Because these schedules are not uniform throughout the offices it 
would be better for the client to ask at the outset for a copy of 
his architect’s schedule. It would be helpful also if client and 
architect would discuss frankly in the beginning the application 
of the schedule in case the cost grows beyond the amount proposed 
to be used or in case the owner cuts down the size of the house 
after bids have been received. It not infrequently happens that 
disappointment arises through the difficulty of reconciling what 
an owner asks for, with the amount he wishes to pay. Often an 
owner brings to the architect an outline plan indicating the num¬ 
ber of rooms he wishes and their dimensions. It is here he should 
be explicit regarding the sum of money available for the work 
If he has $20,000 to use on the house, irrespective of grounds, 
water supply, sewage disposal and outbuildings, let him [say 
$17,000 to the architect, stating that this sum must include 
architect’s fees. He will not regret the $3,000 margin thus pro¬ 
vided, as he will find ample use for it in paying for changes and 
extras that may arise as the work proceeds. 
It is unfair to try to hold the architect responsible for unsatis¬ 
factory estimates. He is not a contractor; is not in daily touch 
with the fluctuations in the cost of labor and materials and does 
not find it possible under existing conditions to keep an estimating 
department. There are times when contractors’ estimates will 
vary as much as 50 per cent, with all bidders figuring from the 
same plans and specifications. If builders disagree so radically 
it can hardly be expected that an architect can make a closer esti¬ 
mate than some of these builders. The usual method employed 
in an architect’s office is to calculate the cost on the basis of a 
price per cubic foot of volume of the entire house or per square 
foot of the area of the principal floor. Such calculations are only 
reliable when the architect is able to compare the proposed build¬ 
ing with one already constructed of similar materials. High 
estimates are very frequently caused by additions to the size or 
quality of a building as the drawings and specifications are being 
developed. An owner will start with economical ideas and will 
be carried away by his desire to build “for all time.” The esti¬ 
mates come in and are high. The client is amazed and fre¬ 
quently blames the architect. 
The usual custom, when bids are high, is to see what can be 
cut from the specifications in an effort to reduce the estimates. 
Sometimes this can be done successfully when the original speci¬ 
fications have been especially complete, with only the best mate¬ 
rials included. If the estimates are as much as 20 or 25 per cent 
high the best solution is to order a new set of plans with a house 
three-quarters the size and volume of the original. In cases like 
this the owner is likely to find fault with the architect, and, it 
must be admitted, there are times when the blame is deserved. 
Yet the situation is likely to produce friction if the question has 
not been frankly threshed out in the beginning. 
The writer believes that the most satisfactory procedure is to 
make a contract with the architect for preliminary sketches and 
to require an approximate estimate from some reliable builder as a 
part of the contract. The fee for preliminary sketches is usually 
one-fifth of the total commission, which, for a house costing 
$17,000 would run from $238 to $340 according to New York 
City prices. For this fee an owner may expect careful studies of 
all floor plans and elevations, an outline specification and a per¬ 
spective sketch. The fee would be considered a payment on 
account in case the working drawings were made. The estimate 
thus obtained would not be a bona fide bid but it would serve 
excellently to show the owner what his outlay would have to be. 
He might then decide to reduce the size of the house or to add to it. 
These matters can be far more satisfactorily adjusted in the 
sketch stage than through alterations to working drawings. 
These agreements between client and architect would better 
be made in writing. Often the architect will mail his printed 
schedule to the owner and ask his acceptance of the terms therein 
contained. While this has many times been entirely satisfactory 
it still seems evident that something should be said by the owner 
to the architect with reference to the charges in case the cost, for 
one reason or another, runs far beyond the original proposed 
cost, and by the architect to the owner in case cuts are made, 
involving much time and trouble to the architect for which he 
may receive only a reduced fee. The system of charges is not 
ideal but is the best that has been devised by many generations 
of able men. The difficulties may be largely avoided by a simple 
agreement entered into at the start which will either accept with¬ 
out question the schedule as printed or will describe the interpreta¬ 
tion that will be given to the schedule in the event of changes. 
(63) 
