Visiting regularly, answering the builder's questions, reviewing what's claimed and what's changed, and keeping the design intent intact.
This is the stage people cut. The tender came in high, the construction fee has not been spent yet, and deleting it is the only saving available that does not change the drawings. I understand the logic completely. It is still the wrong cut, and I would rather explain why than watch it happen quietly.
First, the word. An architect does not supervise a build. The builder controls the site, the program, the trades and the safety, and none of that can be handed to somebody else. What an architect does is administer the contract — observe whether what is being built matches what was documented, answer the builder's questions, review shop drawings, assess variations and progress claims, and hold both parties to what was agreed.
That distinction matters because supervision promises something no architect can deliver, and it hides the thing they actually do. On a residential site there is precisely one party with no financial interest in the answer to any given question.
You can build without me, and plenty do — what it costs shows up in decisions nobody was there to question.
Hundreds of small decisions arise on site that the drawings can't fully anticipate. Being there for them is what keeps the finished house resembling the one that was agreed. The architect observes conformance with the contract documents and instructs on quality, materials and performance.
Not being alone with a builder. The power imbalance on a residential site is enormous — one party does this every day, the other has never done it. Having an advocate who speaks the language changes the client's experience of the entire year.
'You can build without your architect involved. Plenty of people do, and it saves a fee.' What it costs is the person who understands why a decision was made being absent when it's quietly reversed. The reversals are individually small and cumulatively fatal to the design.
This is the service people delete first, and it is the one whose absence costs the most. About a tenth of the fee, spread over six to twelve months. You can build without me. Plenty of people do, and it saves a fee. What it costs is having the person who understands why a decision was made absent when it is quietly reversed. If the cost is a problem, say so and we will reduce the number of visits rather than pretend the work is smaller than it is.
No, and anyone offering supervision is using a word they should not. Supervision implies control of the site, the trades and the safety, and that responsibility sits with the licensed builder — it cannot be transferred to a consultant who is there once a fortnight. What an architect does is observe general conformance with the contract documents and instruct on quality, materials and performance. If someone offers to supervise, ask exactly what they mean, how often they will be there and what they will put in writing afterwards. The answer will tell you what you are actually buying.
Not always, and I would rather be straight about it. If the scope is modest, the documentation is genuinely complete, and you have a builder you know and trust, you can run it yourself and people do. The cases where I would not is where there is structure being altered, character controls, complex detailing, or where you would not be confident assessing a progress claim or a variation on your own. The honest test is this: when the builder says the drawing cannot be built as shown, do you have a way of knowing whether that is true?
It is a defined service. Issuing the construction documents and any amendments, visiting site periodically to observe conformance with the contract documents, running site meetings and recording them, reviewing shop drawings, answering the builder's queries with supplementary details, assessing and determining variations, assessing progress claims and issuing progress certificates, assessing claims for extra time, adjusting provisional and prime cost sums, determining practical completion, and then instructing rectification through the defects liability period. Roughly a tenth of a typical architectural fee, spread across six to twelve months of somebody else's decisions.
On a house, fortnightly is a common rhythm, with extra visits around the moments that cannot be undone — setout, frame, waterproofing, and just before linings go on. It should be set in your agreement as a number, not left vague, because vagueness here is how both sides end up disappointed. If the fee is more than you want to spend, reduce the frequency of visits rather than the scope of the role. Fewer visits is a smaller service honestly described. A cheaper hourly rate for the same service is just a fiction you both have to maintain.
Often, upfront, yes — and it is a legitimate way to build a house. What you give up is independence. Under a one-roof arrangement the person assessing the variation works for the person claiming it, the person determining practical completion works for the person who wants the final payment, and the person value-managing the design works for the party whose margin the savings come out of. None of that makes them dishonest. It just means nobody in the transaction is structurally on your side, and you should decide that knowingly rather than by accident.
If you would rather start small, the First Sketch Session is two hours at your place. You keep the sketches, and there is no obligation afterwards.