I agree with pretty much laag has had to say on the subject. I'll still occasionally sit down at the board to hand draw a plan (usually if I'm redoing a yard we put in fifteen years ago and I can put vellum on the original basemap), but 90% of what I do involves a blending of AutoCAD and hand-drawing. Layer management is the key- as was alluded to, you can have your pretty picture for the client to look at; turn some layers on or off, and have a grading and drainage plan; turn a few more on and off and have your irrigation, electrical, or what have you, all in one drawing. So for workflow efficiency as well as accuracy, I'm a huge fan. You may be able to save money and pick up an older copy of AutoCAD somewhere. Our office still uses AutoCAD2002LT. Even though Autodesk no longer supports it, we have few problems and it does everything we need from a CAD program. As regards the learning curve, it's well worth it! My instructor told us that once you know CAD, you can learn pretty much any other graphics program much more quickly. It's true; I picked up Photoshop and SketchUp really quickly, faster than I think i would have otherwise. There are also some free CAD programs floating around, some of which I've heard are actually pretty good. I've just never tried them, because once you know AutoCAD, having to re-learn how to draw a line will drive you insane! I say, if you'll have access to the program and you can make yourself use it frequently, go for it. There are great ways to integrate technology (for ease of use) and hand drawing techniques (because no software will ever have the soul of a hand render); Jim Leggit does a phenomenal job sharing techniques in his book, Drawing Shortcuts.

Did you look at the stuff he's promoting?? It looks like the posters that hung in dorms rooms in the 60's - a bit too psychedelic for my taste. My clients would be appalled if I made presentations like that. Just glitz to cover less than skilled design work, IMO. And yes, spam.

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.

My understanding is that you contracted for several items which were to be delivered in six weeks but after six months they only delivered one item - the Floor Plan. You have paid them 50%. I would say go ahead and treat them as if you own them. Let them attempt to sue you or estop you for using what they sent you. There is a doctrine in contract law which is partial consideration. Without discussing it at length it is extremely unlikely that they would prevail if they attempted to prevent you from using the plans for your personal use. Under the facts which you have stated it is likely that a court would support the private citizen against the commercial entity especially since they had breached the contract by not performing in a timely manner and only providing you with a portion of what you asked for - and that is of questionable value when you paid them 50%. However I am not sure whether you have truly received anything of value since what will you realistically be able to do with these partial floor plans.