There is a very pretty village near to our office that is regularly rated as one of the best places to live. It contains five churches of varying sizes, ages and popularity.
The most popular is also the ugliest (according to Pevsner in his architectural guide) and a decade ago they decided to build a new hall onto the main building. The idea was to replace the existing, slightly grotty building that they had.
A firm of architects was appointed, and work commenced on the plans.
The first draft plans showed a building a storey higher and with a footprint five times the size of the existing building. By the time they were committed to the build, the budget had ballooned into a significant seven figure sum. The hall itself would be bigger than the actual church building it was to be attached to.
For a small village this was an extraordinary build budget and that was before anyone had calculated the running costs of such a monster.
A review of the process shows a degree of mission creep with too many people having a say in what was needed but another significant factor was the architect. Working from a small office in a residential street, he had low operating costs, and his contracted fee was based on a percentage of the final build cost. This would be an extraordinarily profitable project for him.
Architectural design is one of the few remaining professions that still regularly takes a percentage fee. It creates a misalignment between the needs of the client and the financial interests of the firm. The client generally needs the most cost and time efficient solution but the designer is paid more for the most expensive solution.
At least in the case of the architect it is a one-off fee.
Imagine if they were paid a percentage of the value of the building they designed, every year it lasted (and a percentage up front)!