Sunday, August 13, 2006
Do architects short sell or overcharge?
Everyone agrees that good design is priceless but the question many ask is how much to pay for it. One goes through a range of emotions starting from quandary, quibble and outrage when agreeing or disagreeing on design fee. There is confusion. Some architects demand in terms of percentage of construction cost, some charge a lump sum, some on the basis of square feet and some even charge every drawing they release. There is always a lingering suspicion whether architects overcharge.
How much to pay an architect? This is not a million rupee question. Architectural practice is governed by the codes and scales fixed by the Council of Architecture. Council norms are elaborate. Projects are identified by their categories, scale and deliverables and the fee is accordingly decided. For example, to design a stand-alone regular residence, the fee payable is about 7.5 per cent of the cost of works assigned. This includes design drawing, approval plans, supervision and other services. It appears simple, straightforward and settled, but in practice it is not so.
Not only clients but also architects often ask why regulate professional fee? How do you fix it? Why follow codes and norms? Some even consider it a restrictive trade practice. Probably part of the answer lies in the definition of profession and a professional. Tom Spector, the author of the book The Ethical Architect, describes a professional as one who combines skilful application of technical knowledge with the ethics of practice. By this definition, an architect not only technically meets the client's needs but also has the responsibility to protect society from `dangers' of bad building. He or she is expected to mediate between `private demands and public concern'. In Spector's words, society benefits from the arrangement of giving a group of people the responsibility of shouldering such ethical dilemmas. Hence, professionals like lawyers, auditors and architects are governed by strict codes of practice. And the fee is very much a part of this code that ensures that quality work is delivered with reasonable profit. Undercutting and unethical soliciting of work have always proved to affect the responsibility of the professional. In such cases, fair negotiation between private and public concern is liable to be hampered.
It is not about making honesty affordable. Such a notion would trivialise the concern and effort. Council of Architecture norms is an arrangement done with trust and mutual benefit. Whenever architects and clients have attempted to cut corners both have suffered. Sometimes the fee charged or paid is abysmally low and it beats common sense understanding as to how such low fee would ensure quality work. There are instances of architects resorting to unethical practices in the form of receiving commission from contractors and material suppliers to make up for the lost money. There are also many cases of architects not having paid in full or clients disappearing after receiving the drawings. Many of these disputes are not legally resolved. Time and costs involved in legal contestations are more than the remuneration in dispute. What makes the profession of architect complex and different from that of a lawyer and a doctor is that the architect is not perceived to be involved in the process of making. Only contractors are considered indispensable to buildings. This peculiar division of labour portrays the architect a little removed from the making of the building. This adds to the quandary as to why pay an architect a good deal of money. Architects in defence argue that they are responsible for the conception, execution and save money for the client, which justifies the fee they charge.
There are two ways to settle the confusion. One is to legally tighten the fee structure and the responsibility and make it binding on all parties. The other is to do away with codes and norms and allow the market to decide. In fact, the second is what we are tending towards and it is very much the current norm, if not the preference. It is said that even the foreign architecture firms that operate in Chennai and other places in India are resorting to a square feet method of charging, with the bulk of the money going to them and the crumbs given to the local architect who does all the hard work. This is a separate story waiting to be told.
The professional institutions are upset about the current trend and wish to step in and regulate, but they will be ineffective since the architects themselves have decided not to conform. Architects fear rigid fee structures would out-price each other. Only star architects would be safe and the strong-willed would anyway never compromise on fee and quality. It is the clients' market. In many cases the builders call the shots. No matter what rules and framework we evolve nothing can be more effective than mutual trust. But in the era of increasing legalisation of responsibilities, traditional and moral instruments may not be sufficient.
In 1996, The New York Times reported that the architects of the Ciba-Geigy Lab in Tarrytown, New York, agreed to take one-third of their professional fee only if the occupants of the building decided it was worth it.
They had to wait till the building was not only completed but also occupied and assessed. In other words, the architects were risking all their hard toiled design hours. There is another way to look at it. . Architects were not only confident about their professional abilities but also enjoyed mutual trust. That may be the answer.
