Can I Sue My Architect if Zoning doesn't pass?

Personally, I don' think you give us enough information to offer advice (although lack of information has never prevented many members of this group from offering advice!)

A lot depends on what you hired the architect to do.... in other words, what does it say in your contract? When I design a home, building, addition, or whatever, my responsibilities normally include reviewing ALL legal issues related to the project. Typically we get an official copy of the property's plat from the county courthouse....which shows the property lines, easements, setbacks, etc. We also check with the published regulations. This usually includes maps that show what zoning requirements govern the property, including setbacks and lot coverage, maximum floor area, building height, etc. Here in San Antonio we usually have to investigate neighborhood districts and deed restrictions, etc. Only then are we ready to begin designing. In districts covered by historic conservation regulations we usually request preliminary board approval of the basic design before starting the working drawings. If we do all this well, there should never be a zoning problem unless it is a particularly complicated situation. The only time I ever needed to hire zoning consultants was for high-rise projects in New York City.

Of course.....the services I describe above are not cheap, and many clients prefer to buy a plan.

Now then....if your architect's contract called for him/her to be responsible for designing the addition with reference to the local zoning conditions, then it looks as if they dropped the ball and owe you the necessary revisions. However, if you bought plans from an architect...or from a non-architect.....and asked the builder to take care of the permit process, then the builder has the responsibility.

I hope this helps!

Christopher Egan Architect Egan/Martinez design San Antonio, Texas y Mexico City

www.egan-mart> My husband and I have been working on an addition on our house.

Of course you can sue the architect - unless your contract says otherwise.

Ouch!!! :-)

Good advice Mr Egan

I agree with Don & Christopher... but there may be other mitigating circumstances. For instance, did the zone regs. get changed between starting the process and applying for the permit? (I've had this happen) Did the architect and builder get bad information from a zoning official (I have had this happen more than once--and now I require the zoning official to put what they say down in writing. If they refuse, and they have, I let the client know that there are no guarantees and plan for the worst). Did the architect interpret the ordinance one way and the local building official a different way? Did the architect represent the plan from the beginning as one that would require a variance? Did you ask them for a design that resulted in one that would require a variance?

Yes, they should have known what the issues were prior to designing, but sometimes the story isn't as simple as you might see it to be.

The fair thing to do would ask the architect for a revised plan that meets the ordinances. If you were my client, I would be more than happy to provide you with such a design. You'll probably get further along with this request.

Just as a side note, I have one client who I've learned is a bit whacked. Apparently, he's called the zoning office several times to register complaints about his neighbors doing "illegal" things. He's the proverbial "boy who cried wolf." He then needed the zoning office to approve a variance on an addition. The zoning office has given him the worst run-around. After talking to some of his apparently more sane neighbors, I think the zoning office is just playing with him at this point. They are, um... "returning the favor" for his neighbors. Fortunately for me, the zoning office shenanigans have mostly squashed the project and I haven't done much more work on it.

One quick question... Are you sure you're working with a licensed architect (no offense to Don)? Up in our neck of the woods there are lots of "designers" running around who really don't have a clue (again, no offense to Don). I've been called several times to try and fix a mess some guy with a drafting table created. These designers are often not up on the current ordinances, don't ask the right questions and generally are not really qualified to do what they do. Most of the people who call me refer to their previous designer as their previous "architect" when the person was not really an architect (as defined by the State, which has taken it upon itself to define).

IF the person you're working with isn't an architect, but have passed themselves off as a licensed architect, then you certainly may have more leverage in getting the issue resolved.

Hey....I've been so quiet recently that I had to include at least one dig in my reply, Paul!

Recently I've tried to keep my head down and focus on work. Someday you guys may learn about a medical adventure I seem to have survived this year.....but it's too soon and too recent.

Now I'm back to drawing!!

Christopher

It is the registered architects responsibility to contact the local authorities/zoning to acquire the requirements for siting a building, whether residential or commercial, when developing the site plan for the project. Among items that are required previous to design are the geotechnical report and site survey. The fees for geotech report and site survey are commonly directly paid by the owner. Legally you might be able to sue the architect but don't forget he is responsible for your present design and you won't get the same design if you have to hire a new architect. And, you will have to pay for what work was completed by the architect that does not have conflict with the zoning. Not to mention the time involved. Negotiation is a possible solution based on your contract with the registered architect. He might just subtract the $1000 from your fee and make the required changes to comply with zoning. It is not the contractors responsibility regarding zoning issues.

CID... _________________________________________________________ Charles I. Dinsmore, SE PE RA ~ chuck snipped-for-privacy@hotmail.com

ya gotta wonder, what is the value of a plan for something that Shall Not be built...

-- R'zenboom

Hope things are well.....both personally and business wise........we are treading water in the weak Mich economy :-( thought we are chasing a

snipped-for-privacy@egan-martinez.com wrote in news: snipped-for-privacy@f14g2000cwb.googlegroups.com:

Is that a building pun ("dig")...?

That sounds unpleasant - hopefully all is now well.

I was looking at your website recently (a couple weeks back). I'd be interested in any new photos you get to upload :)

- Kris

I'm just curious how it works. I realize that most architects (?all?) like to build what they design. What I don't know/understand is whether architects (perhaps opnes who concentrate more on the engineeringside of things?) ever work with designers (or visa versa, however one wishes to phrase it...)

Or would it be more like, designers and engineers?

There are a lot of specialties and, although it's fairly clear that plumbing and HVAC, for example, have to be subcontracted, some other things seems less defined.

I'm also curious about visualizations (OK, no surprise, since I've mentioned that I'd like to eventually get into doing that !) But, do architects and/or designers work with 3D? I'm assuming not all architects and designers also do 3D - or am I mistaken? Does one have to be one, before one can be a visualization specialist?

Again, just looking for more understanding on how it all hangs together.

If there is a website that explains this (or more than one), URLs would be great.

Thanks in advance!

- Kris

Soon as you get a commission in a state where you aren't licensed, you gotta find a local or not take the job. Well, or get licensed.

Colorado takes very few dollars and >ping< it's done. California has their own test and it can be real annoying. NCARB can make getting registered in other states more easy, I THINK; been a couple years since I looked at it.

And really, isn't having more than one partner in a firm collaboration?

I know this firm has done some collaborative works, but I am not familiar with the circumstances.

All the principals yell at each other while the interns draw the drawings then take them to the one guy in the office whose ego isn't enmeshed in it. He stamps them then the contractor makes the city submittal ;-)

From this tiny office - not much. Only one partner, one receptionist and one intern can even DO 3d. The partner will slap some thickness on some plines every rare now and then to have a look at something. Recently he had the intern build up something more proper with solids to help with visualization (mostly for the lighting guy) of a tricky interior. Sometimes the receptionist is lucky and gets to do a pretty exterior rendering. One for a sales pitch (you may remember that from earlier this year (we finally did get the job)) a couple for "Hi, won't this be cool? Give us money to build." and one for a city guy who can't read drawings.

That reminds me, I've got another "give us money" job that sorta needs to be done. One of these days. It's interesting, as it'll be my first "integrate to site photo" attempt.

Our senior partner doesn't even bother to do 2d. He owns a pencil and a straightedge. What's all this computer crap for? ... And in the end, he doesn't need it.

One? And architect? No, I don't think so.

"Kris Krieger" wrote in message news:_mwGe.6145$ snipped-for-privacy@newsread3.news.pas.earthlink.net...

Well, here's my opinions & experience: I'm not an Architect (call me a designer or drafter, whichever fits your criteria). I've done work for Architects so I'll explain a little about how some of the projects were handled:

1. - A new concept restaurant - The Architect was hired but had a full time job that seriously limited his available time. The Architect also knows nothing about CAD (or computers in general). The Architect's abilities are great in project management and construction management but his design skills are average at best. He hired me to "help" him. Together we worked up schematic design sketches. Then I did all construction drawings (I'd draw it up and then he'd redline it as necessary). I also dealt with all day-to-day coordination (i.e. with Kitchen Equipment Supplier, Aquarium manufacturer, HVAC, Structural Engineer, Landlord, etc.). The Architect was only available for meetings only after 7pm so we would meet one or two evenings a week. During construction he did construction management, but this required very little since the GC is a personal friend and has lots of experience. A couple of issues or note did crop up though: A) The clients decided 2 weeks before submitting for permit to "flip" and "redesign" the entire layout which really screwed up my schedule. I ended up work ~120 hours in 2 weeks to get the plans ready for permit. B) The original aquarium manufacturer was fired. They said they could do it but once construction started they realized there was no way to get the damn thing into the building (we even considered temporarily removing the front windows and bringing it in through there but it wouldn't fit). The GC decided to make it on-site (picture a 50' long "S" shape) and so I plotted out full size drawings so that the welder could use it as a template.
2. - A free lance Architect occasionally calls me to help when he gets real busy. Typically I'm given a CAD file of the final Schematic (or maybe partially completed CDs) and I finish the CDs. Any changes or redlining by the Architect is then picked up by me.
3. - A free lance Architect does just sketching for a builder. Big remodeling/addition jobs where the builder finds color sketches help him sell the job. I draw up as-builts and take photos (sometimes I'll quick sketch the preliminary design). I send this to the Architect who draws up "presentation quality" color sketches. Once the builder has shown the homeowner these then I do construction drawings. Problem is, 80% of the time the finished CD's don't match the sketch (I can't tell you how many "headroom" issues come up from a sketch that just doesn't "work"). Once the HO sees the sketches though they tend to fall in love with THAT. Any slight change or deviation from the sketch inevitably cause grief.

I think the Architect-Designer relationship can work, but there needs to be clearly defined roles and responsibilities. Another issue is software compatibility. I did a project for an Architect who was using different software than me. If I use his software it costs him more because I'm slower, if I use mine, then anything he does potentially slows him down. My suggestion is to have a clearly define "hand-off" point that will minimize some of the software issues.

In #2 above you see that once I start it's all mine to finish (so software isn't really an issue). In #3 above it's mine from start to finish with the exception of the sketching so again, it works smoothly. If roles aren't clearly defined than you could be opening a can of worms.

You also mentioned 3D. I've done some 3D rendering of my projects. Some Architects use 3D software, most I know just do perspective sketches. 3D work can be somewhat time consuming (i.e. costly) so it's not warranted on all projects. If you're working on a screen porch addition than usually the budget can't afford a $1500 photo-realistic rendering. However, if you're doing an airport, then there is room in the design budget for 3D stills and video.

As a "non-Architect" I normally relish the jobs I do with an Architect. It gives me the chance to work with someone else who knows what they're doing. However, if my role was to only do as-builts and then hand it off I wouldn't be happy.

HTH,

Michael (LS)

I actually love working with the "sketcher" Architect I mentioned. Years ago we worked together at a firm and our personalities work nicely together. The reason we work so well together has more to do with mutual respect than anything else. He values my input and I his. When I had off a project to him I'll typically include some sort of napkin rough design sketch and then he flushes out some of the details and makes it look real purty! When I start the CD's there's always issues/questions and we both bounce ideas off each other. Are approach differs quite a bit to the design and it allows us to look at things from two ways (he's a "design" guy while I'm more of a "how the hell will it work" & "is it in the budget" kind of guy). This allows us to push each other while also making sure we give the client something "doable".

Anyway, over the years I've learned a ton from him (and I like to think maybe he's learned a thing or two from me - at least I know he's learned CAD from me, he didn't know it at all when we first started working together).

So while a lot of people can be a real pain, if both parties share a mutual goal then it can be a joy to tag-team a project.

Michael (LS)

I'm not quite sure how you are using the term "designer". Are you using in regards to the pure aesthetic design of the building? All architects are designers in some sense. Sometimes specialty in certain aspects occur due to someones specific skills that have developed over time. It all depends.

Example: When my firm does a project in the US, we typically will do ALL of the documents, from Concept all the way through Construction Documents. This is pretty standard. So we cover the range of what the building "looks like" and presentation drawings to how it's actually put together and constructed.

OTOH, when we do a project in another country we will typically only take the drawings from Concept thru to Design Development, with a local architect or contractor doing the Construction Documents. Usually due to different local standards found in each said country which would make it nearly impossible to do the technical documents from the US. In this case we are considered the "Design" architect. This specialization has also happened on some US projects, usually due to certain expertise on a particular type of project that the client is doing. You'll see this happen on large mixed-use projects where there are many different building types involved in one development. You'll sometimes see a firm brought in that specializes in doing say Hotels, Retail, or Office. In that case, different design firms will be working and coordinating together.

We also work with many other consultants who are "designers". Such as landscape, lighting, interiors, and enviromental graphics. You name it, every project is different. In the case of these types of designers, they usually fall under our scope of work contractually. In other words, they have been contracted by us, to coordinate with us.

Just trying to clarify what you are asking when you use the term Designer. Hope I haven't added confusion to your question.

Concerning 3D visualization. In my particular case, 3D design is part and parcel of everything I do. There is not a project I work on that some form of 3D isn't done. In Concept and Schematic design we typically do all of our own 3D and visualizations. In certain instances we will go "out of house" if we need a really "fancy" 3D rendering done. Usually at the specific request of the client, or we are just too damn busy to do it ourselves. I remember a different thread covering this topic a while back in this group. Everybody seems to have their own "process" on how they design, so I'm sure you'll get many different answers. This is just my particular corner of it. Hope that helps.

"gruhn" wrote in news:TnzGe.61$ snipped-for-privacy@news.uswest.net:

Oh, yeah, I forgot that it's 1 state, 1 license - no national license. Duh...

I don't know; I'd assume it'd depend upon how the labor is or isn't divided...

Congrats :) !

Ah.

I know that CAD is the "big gun" for illustrating thins like plumbing and electrical systems, and can be used to generate 3D views - and 3D is better for realistic visualization but it is possible to lay out various systems, and show them in a "ghost" (i.e. semi-transparent) building.

I'm mainly wondering whether 3D visualization is actually useful. ((Personal angle is that, although I love modeling structures and just do it for that reason, maybe I ought to stick with using 3D to model, and generate plans for, my woodworking and hopefully (space permitting) stained glass projects, and concentrate on trying to peddle that sort of thing, as opposed to trying to break into doing visualisation for pay.))

Do you mean compositing...? ((I have 3D on the brain so I do tend to interpret everything in terms of that...))

Well, that's pretty cool tho'. Some architectural drawings IMO are art in and of themselves, and there's a real sense of the mind-to-hand connection, I supposed one could say "craft" but I do not mean craft in the sense of poorly-cut-out-magazine-designs of plywood piggies painted pink :p ... I mean in the senst of "handwork done with precision and excellence".

Smae here but I just wasn't positive.

Thanks for your input!

- Kris

Only partly. The compositing part is straight forward Photoshopping. The hard part is camera matching and light matching.

"Michael \(LS\)" wrote in news:1AzGe.1427$ snipped-for-privacy@tornado.rdc-kc.rr.com:

Are you kidding? $1500 for a 3D render? That's a lot more than I'd assumed one would get.

It *can* be time-consuming but mainly if one has no system. To develop a system, I'd have to know what I'd be getting (?blueprints?) and practice with it a bit. IOW, if I received a black-and-white image/drawing/pront/copy/etc. floorplan, I could scan, save as 2D DXF, clean up the lines, import to 3D, and simply sweep, then open uo the windows as per the measurements, and so on. If I would just be getting perspective drawings or elevations, with no floorplan, I'd have to figure out how to do the insides.

So I'm trying to decide what to practice with; scan, import, and sweep I suppose, as opposed to subtracting out spaces.

But in any event, $1500 seems to me to be a lot...I guess it's charged by the job rather than by the hour, since the more expereinced one is, the faster one can work, and some of the 3D I've seen strikes me as being rather less then photorealistic.

Thanks for your input, it does help - all info is grist for the old Mental Mill and more insight is always good :)

- Kris

"Cato" wrote in news: snipped-for-privacy@g49g2000cwa.googlegroups.com:

In a way, that's part of what I'm not clear on, to be honest. I know that Don is a Designer, because he knows a lot and can design a place and have his documentation accepted. And I know that architects also generally design - take client ideas and turn them into structures. The main difference seems to be that one is licensed, whereas the other is not. ((One cannot automatically assume depth of knowledge in all areas on the part of either, so any client would have to do a lot fo homework.))

But it seems that, OTOH, some architects seem (from what I've been ablet oto gather) on engineering. So would they then team up with a designer? Does one work with the other or are they mutually exclusive? As in, would Sam Smith AIA look at Joe Smith Designer and say, He doesn't even have a license, I'm not gonna work with him...

Or in fact would there ever even be a circumstance at all where a designer (unlicensed but knowledgeable) would work with an AIA type?

So shifting over to 3D, tipocwise, it is not all that useful, then.

Ah, I see. SO if someone fro another place likes your work, they can still hire you to do the design, and then, as you point out:

Oh, OK, that makes sense. Because each type (medical, hotel, residential) has various factors that the designer (or design team?) has to take into consideration.

OK, that helps clarify things to me.

Not at all! I didn't think about the many possible types of design and designers.

So in your office, it's a part of the required "tool box" so to speak...

Yeah, it does. My orioginal question was, I realize, awfully vague, but all the various answers are giving me more insight into the workings.. thanks!

- Kris