What this discussion is really about is not drawing by hand or using a computer, it's really about what work is being done, what sort of "service" a client is getting and, most importantly, what the final result or outcome will be. Builders and designers may often work based on existing designs that they have built and are already fully resolved and stored in the computer. When a new client comes along, one of the existing computer files is called up and "reheated" or tweaked to meet the new client's wish list. When clients go to a builder/designer who charges $1/SF for services, this may be what is happening. Plus the builder/designer simply transfers any additional costs to the construction budget, where the client never sees them. For many consumers, this approach fits them perfectly. They don't want a custom designed home. All they want is an existing home that's tweaked to include their list of features. Think about what's going on: could any adult make a living, pay business expenses and reinvest in growing their business on $1/SF (or less)? How many 3,000 SF houses would such a builder need to do for annual income sufficient to stay in business and make a living for his family? That's why construction costs, and extra costs due to low allowances, provide most of the needed business income for builders and in-house designers. In this business model, the minimal "design" fees are simply a way to get people to sign a construction contract. In other words, what's being done may by cooking a previously existing floor plan until "complete", with little or no corresponding thought or work on site planning, climate and green design, and almost no thought to exterior massing and design. When the floor plan is sufficiently baked, the rest of the project is like icing a new cake. The exterior decoration is simply applied and handed to the client. This sort of incomplete thinking about design is why we see so many postings here on this forum of "fat" house plans, and corresponding ill-proportioned, roof-heavy exteriors, with a pretty "street face" and vanilla sides and backs. It's why so many designs are a miss-mash of stacked gable roofs and patch-work quilt wall materials--all decoration and no substance! All of the effort went into tweaking a plan and little or no corresponding work took place elsewhere. Architects work differently. They organize their work and fees by phases, working from very open-ended studies and explorations for a custom design, to a highly detailed set of drawings and specifications for bidding and construction. These phases of work are clearly defined and derived from a historical understanding of how building design proceeds in a step by step process, from initial ideas to final details, where insides, outsides, site, codes, energy, etc., are all considered together throughout the design process. The five typical phases for designing a project are: schematic design, design development, construction drawings and specifications, bidding and construction. One phase does not begin until the client has approved the work from the prior phase. These phases are why many architects may start a project using pencil, pen and tracing paper as they meet and discuss ideas, explore site opportunities, develop energy and green strategies, finally pulling everything together in a holistic schematic design. Thereafter, with the design direction identified, a computer may be used effectively to refine and add greater precision and detail, until the work is complete. It's not impossible to use computers for schematic design, but it is more difficult to sit in a meeting with clients, talk about needs and opportunities while punching information into a computer. It's a lot more effective to sit with clients and "doodle" with pencil and paper where everyone can see what their ideas may actually look like. The costs for this type of work is usually set by the architect as either a fixed fee (with conditions on what the fixed fee covers so that the work doesn't ramble on endlessly) or a percentage of the construction cost, or some combination, depending on circumstances. The important point for consumers to understand is that architect's fees are based on the quality and amount of original work by an architect, while SF costs may be based on minimal changes to an existing project, with possible hidden costs rolled into the construction budget. The issue is really not about how the work is performed--by hand or computer--it's really about what work is performed (or not performed) for a client, and what will be the end result: something custom and original or something reheated. Sorry about the long message, but it's important to point out that there's nothing wrong with either custom or reheated designs as long as the consumer understands what they are getting for what they are paying.

Warning, do not purchase 3D Home Architect version 5.0 For years 3D Home Architect was made for Broderbund by the company that makes the professional design program Cheif Architect. The program received glowing reviews based on its ease of use. For some reason (probably money) Broderbund decided to go with a completely different company to develop version 5.0 I purchased version 5.0 based on the reviews I had read for earlier versions and was seriously disappointed. It was slow, difficult to use (and I'm a computer programmer by trade), and would crash frequently. Also there are certain relatively basic features that it just can't handle. Cathedral ceilings? Too bad. Windows above other windows? Too bad. Unusual roof line? Too bad. The worst of it for me was that my main reasonfor purchasing it was to visualize different configurations for the new kitchen and different color schemes and materials. Well for the most part the program only displays a wireframe version of the 3D design. It does allow you to "Render" a full color 3D version of the design, but takes 5 to 10 seconds to draw the image (when I know that the hardware ought to be able to render the entire design 60 times each second.) and the image it produces is so cartoonishly textured that you can forget any sort of subtle tweaks to evaluate the looks created by different woods or different materials. Please do yourself a favor and do no buy 3D Home Architect version 5.0

Dawn has broken. The gloom is gone. Remodelfla, can I just say that you have revolutionized my life. The Excel program works like a dream. I set the width/height to 0.25, with two squares equalling one inch, and away I went. It meant dinner last night was about three hours later than usual, as I couldn't tear myself away from it, but all in the name of the cause. It's sooo much easier than my ruler-and-rubber method, and I don't have to worry about being "green" in my kitchen materials, as this step alone has saved about 600 trees. Thank you!! Of course, this works only for 2-D renderings, but I can deal with that for now. Intrigued by your trajectory, igloochic ... sounds like something I would (and still might) do, starting with the BH&G package. It's like a self-given dare, isn't it? Solarpowered, thanks for the tip re. educational discount. In fact, I do work in an academic environment (medical research), so would qualify! Thanks to all for your help!

Thanks guys! I will check this out! I am working with an architect, but I want to play around with some of the plans myself. We just met and brainstormed ideas for the project, while he let me know what can and cant be done based on structural issues and setbacks. Anyway, he is working on a plan that we agreed on but I want to study it in more detail on my own before he gets it done. Mostly, this will involve moving walls, expanding a part of the house to allow for an entrance to the master and adding a master bedroom/bath. He is great in listening to my ideas (some of which we have done) as well as answering my questions. BTW, this architect just saved me 8k. I was going to use a contractor for some exterior work that he suggested. I thought the ctr. understood what we wanted, but the architect suggested he meet with him at the house. Turned out what they were going to do was not what we wanted at all! So I do understand the value of an architect. :)