Seeking Sketchup Genius to Create 3D Model of Architectural Plans


I have some 2D/3D plans for some architectural work that we will hopefully be having done to our house (attached). I need someone to recreate them for me in Sketchup as an .skp file so that we can visualise what they would look like once the work is complete:

13 Croft Avenue - Proposed plan option 1 (v2).pdf (359.9 KB)

As you can see from the attachments, I have included a copy of the proposed floorplan as well as some 3D interpretations, which should give you enough to go from in order to design the plans.

I am not sure if there is anything else that would help, but please feel free to let me know if you’d need anything else before you can give me a rough idea of costs etc.

Thanks in advance,

Looks to me as if a SketchUp model already exists. It could save someone a great deal of time if it could be shared.

It is definitely the software that the architect uses, but we are reluctant to go back to them as we’ve already given them enough money for plans that we can’t use/afford.

Hence, my attempt at finding a way of improvising :slight_smile:

I think you are on pretty shaky ground with this. It looks like you are wanting to use someone else’s intellectual property.

Even though we paid them for the plans in the first place? This is what it states in the contract:


Since Elliott Architects hold the copyrights, you should contact them to make sure you aren’t in violation of their rights. Or contact your legal counsel. You paid them for services rendered but I doubt you paid them for the copyrights.

Lesson learned.

This time around, have all copyright of the plans and CAD files assigned to you, in the contract.

1 Like

Yes, that’s a downside to being an architectural novice without the benefit of foresight - thanks for all the pointers and guidance - be assured, I’m not trying to pull a fast one - I thought I would have been well within my rights to use their plans as a starting point without any repercussions but perhaps it’s best to double check first.

Even, when it is built , it could very well be that you may not alter the design, without consulting the architect, first…

You look as if you may be based in the UK, like me.

I am a building designer and the rule I have always worked to is that, providing the designer is paid, it is not unreasonable for the client to make use of designs and even to get hold of the computer files to pass on to others. I have frequently taken over jobs from others. Admittedly, it has always been with the consent of the original designers, so whilst it might be common practice, it may not technically be legal if the original designers objected. We are of course much less litigious in the UK than the US so we probably take a more laid back approach. Even so, I think you’d have to take any titleblock off so it doesn’t appear that the original designers are responsible for the end product.



That’s one I have never heard of. They may own the design, an intellectual concept, but not the real estate itself.

That would make for a fascinating situation - perhaps it is applicable if you wanted to remodel something on the order of the Guggenheim - would you be bound to hire the original architecture firm to do the revisions?

In all the times I have done remodels, we may consult the original plans if available, but I can’t recall having to hire the original architects.

In one where I wanted the original plans, to find out if the addition which was partially built in the city right of way (with a permit no less) had been surveyed. I asked the owner who contacted the original builder who nicely supplied copies of the plans, missing only the very sheet that would have had the survey.

Suspicious, huh? Humm. Well, we ended up having to demolish that portion of his house as a condition to do the 2 story addition.

I agree, the designs are quite clearly the architects property, but when needs change, a new design supersedes the old, and all bets are off.

Craigg, in this case however, how much input did you provide? Was the architect fully responsible for the design, or was he functioning as a draftsman, and merely rendering your concepts into a buildable form?


The OP appears to be looking to hire someone to create 3D visuals that already exist. Not sure what happened there.

On the one hand, I see zero issue with leveraging the existing plans if the architects have been paid for their work.

On the other hand, it is almost always faster and cheaper to restart from scratch than attempt to reuse existing plans. It’s only a few hours of labor anyway, judging from the attached PDF

From a purely technical viewpoint, the best way would be to let “elliottarchitects” continue what they started. The second best is to hire new architects to start anew. The third way is… learn Sketchup! :slight_smile:

Know Corbridge well. It is a ‘conservation area’ so there are special considerations to take into account. Did you originally hire your architect with this in mind? ie. not just to provide the design drawings but to negotiate and obtain all necessary local authority approvals, overall contract supervision etc Or did you ask them to just provide a drawing package only for ‘self build’? If the latter IMHO I would think you would be free to obtain or do your own sketches or whatever you need to develop and visualise your project in greater detail.

Here in the states you cannot legally do this if the individual originally hired is a licensed professional. That’s because a licensed professional cannot defer liability for their work to anyone. The only thing a client owns is the paper the plans are printed on. Everything else is the intellectual property of the design professional.


By coincidence, I am an architect, living just down the road from elliottarchitects…
They make a big play of their RIBA-ness [they are a member] - so we must assume their legitimacy [in the UK claiming to be a registered architect when you’re not is actually a criminal offence!]…
The RIBA/ARB may be interested in helping to resolve any disputes you have - but it’s always best to try an reach an agreement directly…
It is common for UK architects to retain copyright of their work, and require some recognition later.
However - as here - they do allow you to use their work in connection with your project [which will of course involve some necessary ‘copying’ of documents] - although their assertion that you might not reassign those rights to others, who might subsequently have an interest in the property seems somewhat restrictive…
So if you use their copyrighted design information to produce more detailed information to be used to realize your project, then it’s OK - although your new ‘designer’ must be made aware of any limitations and NOT to copy their information directly. They can’t prevent you realizing their/your design - they have copyright of their own drawings and documents, but not the “design” itself, which you can develop…

That’s my opinion as a quasi-judicial arbiter [aka an architect] - based on the limited information available to me at this time.


1 Like

And in England/UK they expect you to pay fees to remain an ‘Architect’ to the ARB [and optionally the RIBA to belong to the ‘Royal Institute’] every year - even if you haven’t ‘architected’ for ages ! And also often, to carry their legacy annual-insurance to cover legal indemnity for your passed projects too…

You get liability insurance through the RIBA, or am I misreading that?

Do you have to earn a certain number of continuing education credits to to maintain membership like we do for the AIA? In a certain sense, the annual membership fee is just the ante, and you have to cough up some more for all the continuing education seminars.

Both the ARB [minimum registration needed to call yourself an architect in the UK] and the RIBA [the optional (more expensive) Royal Institute] require that any architects who build or advise carry a minimum level of indemnity insurance, increased pro rata if the annual fee income is over a certain limit.
The ARB have an insurance-broker ‘arm’ to help with that - there are other 3rd-party specialist insurers.
The RIBA also have their own insurance-agency ‘arm’ which offers its members PII cover - at a cost !

As a member of both bodies you are expected to maintain your level of knowledge and expertise.
The RIBA expect at least 35 hours a year - with 10 core areas requiring a minimum of 2 hours each - things like social-architecture, health-and-safety, running a business, legislation, procurement/contracts, sustainability, inclusivity, planning, conservation, technology etc
This can be through relevant seminars, courses and other certified CPD events [Continued Professional Development] - even visiting expos or buildings, or reading relevant books and magazines can be counted. This is ‘self-policing’ in that as a professional you are expected to do it properly. A small % of members get ‘audited’ each year - there is nothing worse than getting a notification requesting your records and evidence of compliance etc - because you have almost certainly fallen short of many of the record keeping etc.
Regional RIBA offices often organize CPD events and issue certificates to attendees - some are free [usually when organized by a manufacturer who is trying to sell his products to you with a buffet-lunch thrown in], but often they will be at a cost - e.g. when covering legislation changes etc, and perhaps with presentations lasting for much of a day…
It’d be possible to satisfy your CPD annual requirements without paying others, but sometimes it’s easier…

That’s comparable to what we have to do for AIA membership. One complication here is that ultimately all licensing is actually done by each state. Some states have mandatory continuing ed, and a few do not. There’s a national body that drives the licensing exam, and a national body that writes a model building code, but each state adopts it’s own rules and flavor of the code. Reciprocity from one state to another is a bureaucratic obstacle course aided somewhat by the NCARB. An example of differences: In New York state, you can’t put a dormer on a house without a licensed architect, but Connecticut exempts one and two family houses, and most other use groups up to 5,000 sq. ft. which covers the majority of construction. I’m living in the wrong state.