The comment was very specific to just the price, and based on only the details in the OP. It's ridiculous to make a value assertion based on that information.
The comment was very specific to just the price, and based on only the details in the OP. It's ridiculous to make a value assertion based on that information.The datum is not the area. But the initial quote and subsequent creep.
The comment was very specific to just the price, and based on only the details in the OP. It's ridiculous to make a value assertion based on that information.
I'm not, I'm simply saying it is impossible to say whether a price represents good value when you have no idea what the scale or specification of the work is. It's like saying 20k is poor value for a second hand car without knowing whether it's a 20 year old Micra or a 2 year old Ferrari.You're trying to defend the indefensible.
I'm not, I'm simply saying it is impossible to say whether a price represents good value when you have no idea what the scale or specification of the work is. It's like saying 20k is poor value for a second hand car without knowing whether it's a 20 year old Micra or a 2 year old Ferrari.
What the OP might have wished to pay for the work does not mean the price quoted is extortionate. As it turns out, a price of 2.5k for new build and 1.5k for refurbishment work is quite reasonable.
No, the statement I responded to made no reference to escalating costs, just that the price quoted was 'outrageous'. You seemed to feel it was a fair statement to make at a point where no area of specifications were provided.For your analogy to be comparable you'd have to get a quotes for work on the same vehicle each time that constantly escalate.
No, the statement I responded to made no reference to escalating costs, just that the price quoted was 'outrageous'. You seemed to feel it was a fair statement to make at a point where no area of specifications were provided.
There was no context at the point the statement was made, just the opening post. A lot has been added since, but that wasn't available when the other poster declared the price was outrageous. Indeed, the detail added since has confirmed the price is actually reasonable.Consider then your saying the price has no context. Because you're ignoring the context of thread in which the post was made or my reply in its entirety.
That's a different question, not whether the price quoted was extortionate for the proposed design.The price may be reasonable for what the architect has designed, but would you consider it reasonable of the architect to come up with plans that will cost nearly double the desired budget?
This was the crux of my original question. And the extension of that is, is it reasonable for us to require the plans be at least roughly within the budget we set to be acceptable or should we expect to pay extra for a redesign?The price may be reasonable for what the architect has designed, but would you consider it reasonable of the architect to come up with plans that will cost nearly double the desired budget?
It is not unreasonable to expect designs to be drawn up within or close to budget. I would have thought this would have been standard.This was the crux of my original question. And the extension of that is, is it reasonable for us to require the plans be at least roughly within the budget we set to be acceptable or should we expect to pay extra for a redesign?
Anyway, no change in situation because we’ve been away but I’m hoping things can get back on track soon.
Well, they’ve only done the initial plans at this stage, not the planning permission or tender drawings, so hopefully not too much time has been wasted. The fees we agreed to were based on a build estimate of 300k ex VAT. It’s just that once they’d drawn up and presented the plans, they they revised their estimate of the build cost to be closer to 450k ex VAT. They have blamed inflation but it was only a couple of months later so that doesn’t explain it. We immediately made it clear that we could not proceed at that price so I doubt they were ever really expecting to get a % of 450k.Be curious what happens now of the fees are a % of the build costs so he puts in work (time) commiserate with a 500k+ build then you scale back (or rein it back to the original) the project back to 375k or thereabouts requiring a redesign which is effectively a lot more extra work for considerably less money. Return on time invested etc.
I assume when you say they've billed you already it's based on the highest estimated building costs to date.
I assume if you ask them to redesign it they'll want that charged separately.
Just out of interest, how much time was spent walking through the proposed design and some of these features? To me the above indicates changes required to comply with the current building regs, particularly TG-M, but wondering if sufficient time was spent talking through all that.(e.g. bedrooms larger, open-plan space very large, downstairs bathroom huge, walk-in wardrobe included etc.),
Building regs were not mentioned in relation to anything other than BER. However, I’ve just looked at the TG-M and there is no requirement for a full bathroom at ground level, all double bedrooms, or walk-in wardrobes. They did mention future proofing and having a part of the house that can be a downstairs en-suite bedroom but, while I can see that it’s important in a general sense, we are not going to sacrifice a bedroom for one of our kids now because there’s a chance we’ll need an accessible bathroom downstairs in the future.Just out of interest, how much time was spent walking through the proposed design and some of these features? To me the above indicates changes required to comply with the current building regs, particularly TG-M, but wondering if sufficient time was spent talking through all that.
You don't get to decide whether you need it now, regs aren't optional. The mandatory minimum dimensions for an accessible bedroom and bathroom on the ground floor are there to improve accessibility of the housing stock, improving choice for those in need of those facilities now and preparing in advance for those who will need them in the future.Building regs were not mentioned in relation to anything other than BER. However, I’ve just looked at the TG-M and there is no requirement for a full bathroom at ground level, all double bedrooms, or walk-in wardrobes. They did mention future proofing and having a part of the house that can be a downstairs en-suite bedroom but, while I can see that it’s important in a general sense, we are not going to sacrifice a bedroom for one of our kids now because there’s a chance we’ll need an accessible bathroom downstairs in the future.
Ok but I never suggested that we wouldn’t comply with building regs? As I said, there is no requirement for a full downstairs bath in the regs. In fact, by installing a downstairs wc we would bring ourselves into compliance with the regs (currently no downstairs loo). There is also no requirement for a downstairs room that can be an en-suite. This is something that was recommended by the architect. I understand about upgrading the housing stock and the value of accessibility in general (as I mentioned above) but it is difficult to do in our house which is a small semi-d. And even the regs recognise the fact that existing houses cannot always be made accessible easily.You don't get to decide whether you need it now, regs aren't optional. The mandatory minimum dimensions for an accessible bedroom and bathroom on the ground floor are there to improve accessibility of the housing stock, improving choice for those in need of those facilities now and preparing in advance for those who will need them in the future.