You do owe the architect something for the plans. They are only useless because you decided not to go forward with him. It sounds like he is partly to blame for this, but if the plans were, in fact, "the house of your dreams" until you started getting bids on them, they are more than useless rough plans. You are correct, your wife is not.

A Satan worshiper? Dang.

The scope of work on your project is extensive enough that it would have been beneficial to pay for a builder's input during the planning phase withthe architect. Architects are few in number that are truly dialed into the local costs of projects. It's the realtor and his ''expert'' that set up the initial false expectations of what your budget would accomplish.

Did you explore any other outside independent estimates from other contractors before engaging the architect? There are several remodeling calculators and reports readily available that could hhave gut checked the numbers that the realtor gave you before you went down this path. A remodel is always more expensive per square foot than buying existing square footage that meets your budget. Proprty Brothers is TV entertainment after all, not a documentary.

The architect produced plans under your direction for your ''dream''. They are buildable. Just not at that higher level with your lower budget. So, you owe the architect for his labor. If the plans are only 100K over your budget, then it is probably cheaper to proceed than to take the hit from selling and moving again. Break the project into stages that can be done over time so that the current portion will be within the current budget.

Here is a link that might be useful: Cost vs Value 2015

Honestly, there were so many bad decisions made that I wasn't sure if this was a serious question or a screenplay for "The Money Pit, Part II."

"The architect produced plans under your direction for your ''dream''. They are buildable. Just not at that higher level with your lower budget. So, you owe the architect for his labor."

lwo:

You're leaving out one important qualifier. The architect hit "dream" and "buildable", but his missed "budget". Anyone can draw anything that's buildable, that's easy. Drawing something that meets all three criteria is difficult and therefore what the client is or should be paying for. Nothing less.

If the owner-architect contract didn't stipulate the architect's compensation was contingent on the bids from contractors not exceeding a stipulated amount, you have no grounds for refusing to pay the architect. You might be able to get the architect to redesign the project at his cost but you should avoid having to tell this story to a judge.

I find it strange that you would take so much trouble to tell this story to us before doing your homework regarding the low bidder or that you would search the internet for similar stories. You should hold yourself to the same standard that you hold others.

I'm struggling to discover what part of "he seemed the most budget minded" and "We gave him a firm budget and he referred to it as "healthy" and "reasonable." others don't understand.

If the architect drew plans that encroached on the neighbor's property everyone would understand that he failed. He didn't encroach on the neighbor's property, he encroached on the client's budget after agreeing it was realistic.

Trebuchet-
I've seen a lot of your posts before and you are usually right-on and reasonable. I just think you aren't right-on with this one. In my experience with architects, even really good ones have great difficulty coming up with designs that meet client budgets and client expectations. I'm not trying to lay the blame on you, but this sounds like a very typical disconnect, and it's unfortunate, but I think you need to pay the architect for his time. That doesn't mean you can't tell him you're disappointed and want him to consider some adjustment in his final bill, but, unless you settle this obligation, I think you will be heading to court, and you have enough on your hands already. Good luck on how this ends up.

I think you owe the architect for the plans. Perhaps you can bring up your dissatisfaction and maybe he will adjust the bill. I have paid two architects now for conceptual plans that I did not implement. I stopped both architects before we moved to the more expensive plans for permits, trades, etc.

I would be leery of using the cheaper gc, if the architect has had poor experiences with him. At the very least, check the gc out with your registrar of contractors if you have not already. I would be nervous of him underbidding to get the job.

If you decide to sell, you can provide the architectural plans to the next buyer.

It really doesn't make sense to design something the client can not afford and then expect to get paid for it. He was presented with a budget and proceeded, even saying it was realistic. What is the point of planning something for them that they can not implement. Maybe he was hoping they would spend more, once seeing their dream home{{gwi:807}}, conceived by way of project creep - but that was his gamble.

I don't know what your legal rights{{gwi:807}} are, but I would discuss with him the fact that he designed something that was unaffordable. What does he expect you to do? If there are ideas or portions of the design you can take away from this exercise{{gwi:807}}, he should be compensated for them, of course.

The other thing is, design is an iterative process. Maybe consider that he needs to work it more. Sounds like he started big. That is his problem and his fault, as the professional, to reconcile. Until he delivers something you can actually use, I don't see why he earned full compensation. He didn't really do his job. Lord knows I hate to agree with Trebruchet, but I agree with his posts on how this guy failed to do his job and deliver.

.

This post was edited by snookums2 on Sat, Jan 17, 15 at 22:13

OP said the architect is going to be paid based on the total construction budget. Does that mean that the architect gets paid a percentage of what it costs to build the project? If so, sounds like the architect has a financial interest in seeing that the low bidder doesn't get the job. He also has a financial interest in expanding the project beyond the initial budget. The more the project costs, the more he makes. Is that correct?

Even with the limited experience I have had with design clients (since I work in an unrelated field, primarily)--it is Very common for clients' desires and wishes, especially if they use terminology like "dream home"--to significantly outweigh their actual budget. I think there is some validity in starting out with what the client Wants so that they actually See on Paper that what they want is not something they can afford. Because if you say flat out "You can't do what you want with your budget", sometimes they don't believe you.

Well then, that's on the architect/designer. Design what they CAN afford first, then upgrade from there if they want. Beginning in an unattainable dreamland serves no one (except the architect/designer, if they manage to get paid). One Can advise first, based on experience, without even putting it all out on paper. If they are unrealistic, as laypeople, the professional can always tell them it is not possible with their budget and take it no further. Happens all the time in other fields. If an architect/designer can not gauge costs reasonably well, they should still be an apprentice learning the field, not working independently at their client's expense.

The architect did, however, tell this client their budget was sufficient. Part of being a professional is understanding costs, budgets and project creep, while keeping the client informed along the way.

If the architect agreed to be paid some percentage of the construction budget, and there is now no construction budget because of the financial infeasibility of his plans, you may technically owe him nothing. However, getting a group of people on the Internet to speculate as to your/his rights is as meaningless as his plans were. You and your wife need to sit down and read the terms of your contract.

In many of these types of agreements, there is typically a provision along the lines of: architect shall be compensated at the rate of 4% of the total construction budget. If client elects for any reason to not pursue construction after plans are complete, then client shall owe architect $1500 (or whatever) for architect's time and effort in creating the plans. See if your contract has this type of out clause.

I can just about assure you the costs of litigating this dispute, even if you ultimately prevail, will be far more than just paying the guy a reasonable amount for his unsatisfactory services.

Personally, I agree with your wife - you contracted for three things, and he only delivered two. If he was not familiar with the prevailing labor rates and construction costs in his area, he never should have agreed to draw up plans that were within your set budget. This is akin to hiring a tailor to make you a custom tuxedo. You tell him you have $1000 to spend on the tux and he agrees to move forward with that budget. However, when you go to pick up the tux, there are no pants. Tailor says, I ran out of money and so I had to eliminate the pants from the tux. Would you owe him any money under that circumstance? Heck no! Why? Because the parts are useless without the whole. Your plans are worthless because they failed to meet the budget requirement. Your wife is correct.

But to avoid the expenditure and time associated with a fight with this guy, call him up, be direct that his plans did not achieve their intended purpose and try to agree on a reasonable amount to compensate him for his time in developing the plans.

Of course all of you who are saying the OP owes nothing return your full salary for the respective number of hours to your employer if you work on a project that gets dropped, make a mistake, or have bad, non-productive days at work. And you owe your attorney nothing if he represents you in a case where you are on not on the winning side.
(of course there are attorneys who "don't get paid unless you do!" --the kind that advertise on public transportation).

I love all the people who are relatively protected for mediocre performance within corporate environments who think anybody who works independently either produces 100% or should get 0% compensation. Try performing your own job like that and see how you do. Studies show that people who work in many typical workplaces are productive about 50% of it.

The OP is already Not Paying the architect his full fee, because that is based (at least the majority of the time) on the cost of the built project. The OP still owes the architect some partial compensation for the initial plans.

I"ve gone through design and build of custom homes a few times. EACH time the plans we thought were reasonable came in way high and we had to start over again. It just seems to happen and quite honestly I think you have to expect it unless you go in first and make a HUGE point about the budget being priority #1