You are not paying an architect just for good design.

When people choose an architect, the portfolio usually gets most of the attention.

That makes sense. You want to like the work.

But a portfolio only shows you where the architect finished.

It tells you very little about the hundreds of decisions, rejected ideas, problems and compromises that got the project there.

And that process matters.

Every architect has beautiful photographs on their website. In isolation, those photographs tell you surprisingly little about what it will actually be like to work with them.

When you are about to invest hundreds of thousands, and sometimes millions, into your home, the question is not simply:

Can they design a beautiful house?

Of course that matters.

But I would also want to know:

• Can they guide me through difficult decisions?
• Can they make a complicated process feel understandable?
• Can they identify risks before they become expensive problems?
• Can they tell me when an idea is likely to cause problems with planning, budget or construction?
• Can they keep the project moving rather than allowing it to disappear into endless redesign?
• Can they explain the trade offs when there is no perfect answer?

Because those are the things you will actually experience during the project.

The finished photographs come at the end.

Before that there will be planning decisions, budgets to reconcile, consultants to coordinate, builders to engage, details to resolve and plenty of moments where the right answer is not immediately obvious.

That is where an architect’s value becomes much easier to see.

A good architect should obviously be able to design a house you love.

But they should also help you make better decisions about
what should be built, what should not be built, how it should be approved, where the risks are and where your money is best spent.

Why are we still building houses one piece at a time?

Imagine buying a new car and instead of it arriving from a factory, thousands of individual parts were delivered to your driveway and assembled over the next year.

It sounds ridiculous.

But it is not that far removed from how we still build houses.

Building is a slow moving beast. As an industry, we have been remarkably slow to change the way we put buildings together.

We are currently designing a new dual occupancy in Bronte using CLT, or cross laminated timber, instead of conventional masonry or lightweight construction.

CLT uses large structural timber panels that are digitally modelled, manufactured off site and delivered ready to be craned into position.

So instead of building everything piece by piece on site, more of the work is resolved before construction begins.

That can mean faster erection, fewer site labour costs, less waste and a shorter overall programme. Because CLT is also much lighter than concrete or masonry, there can also be savings in foundations and supporting structure.

The trade off is that decisions need to be made earlier.

Openings, services and connections need to be properly coordinated before manufacture.

Personally, I think that is a good thing.

The more we can resolve before work starts on site, the fewer expensive decisions we are forced to make during construction.

CLT will not suit every project, but with construction costs and build times continuing to rise, it is exactly the kind of alternative we should be looking at more closely.