The Difference Between Architect Vs Architectural Designer
When it comes to designing your home or commercial property, there are numerous areas to consider. One of the most prominent of these may well happen to be whether an architect is the best and necessary choice, vs an architectural designer who may well do the job for less money and much more efficiently. They’re both easy to find, but which is the better fit? They have big differences after all.
The Main Differences
The main differences between an architect vs an architectural designer are that the architect has gained a part 3 qualification from the ARB and gained the relevant expertise. That means an extra 2 years of studying after a relevant architectural degree. On top of that, there are set requirements for the title to be obtained too. For it to be kept, there must be continued growth and development and a solid track record without issues.
The architectural designer on the other hand essentially doesn’t have to have this. Instead, in almost all cases, the designer will have other qualifications instead. That may well come from a degree or master’s degree in architecture. This often gives parts 1 & 2 of the architectural qualification. Degrees can be through architecture, architectural technologies, building project management, or numerous other things. Alternatively, the experience can be learned in the field where the architectural skills have been learned from scratch through meticulous care, training and effort. They still follow the same practises as architects, and legitimate designers have the same insurances, too.
Which is the Better Choice?
The answer to if an architect is better vs an architectural designer is that it often depends on the project. The vast majority of the time, both are more than adequately equipped to take on your project. Especially if it is anything residential rather than commercial.
Architects of course have this extra part of their qualification, showing their extra years spent studying, the quality that they are expected to abide by, and the regular training they have to carry out in order to remain qualified. As a result, however, they do also cost more money and often are meticulous in their work, taking take overcareful, possibly eccentric details. While this is vital for many projects, for others, this may not be the case, which could cause your project to take more time than needed, and more dramatically, incur much greater costs.
Architectural designers on the other hand may well be the opposite of this. For the most part, a designer will be more than equipped to take on your project for a much lower cost than an architect would and have experience working with your exact type of project in huge numbers since the nature of their work is more equipped to residential vs an architect who may be more suited to grand designs or commercial grade buildings. It’s all subjective and of course, every designer and architect is totally different, but as a principle, it’s a good one to stick by.
Ultimately, the winner in the architect vs architectural designer debate is always going to be different depending on the project at hand. The best thing that you can do to make sure you’re making the right choice is speak to a team that has both.
Many firms out there will have a diverse team of both architects and designers alike. They’re able to choose the most experienced or best-fitting member of staff for your particular build and then move forward with you accordingly. That makes sure you have the exact skills that you need that can be managed efficiently without wasting anyone’s time, money or resources. It’s a win-win for everyone involved.