I think what you say makes a ton of sense. We are in this same process and have opted to go with a designer. Total charge will be about $1,800. This for roughly a 3,000 square foot daylight in Washington State. Designer has worked with our builder on nearly 3 dozen homes so we feel pretty confident with the entire package. We compared this to a couple of architects who where charging upwards of 10% of the construction cost, which in our case could be 40-45K! Nuts, in my opinion!

Yes, that's a lot of money, and if the architect is paid based on construction costs then his/her incentive is to build higher costs into the design, a conflict of interest with the client.

I'm a small builder. I've never used an architect, only architectural technologists. One was excellent in translating subdivision plans into workable infill plans, another minimal on structure and design, but really, really cheap. And a third was outstanding; only trained as a technologist, he was a partner in a major architectural firm. However, it's a must, as far as I'm concerned, to have all plans vetted by an engineer. Indeed, the conscientious technologists I used insisted on it.

Thanks, worthy. Author and builder Carl Heldmann says the same, whether working with designer or architect (unless the architect is also an engineer).

Typically the difference is in degrees. An architect must undergo certain years of education. A designer usually learns through schooling, experience or both. It can go the same way with a builder, they might have a great college education but a book doesn't tell you how to actually build a house. Book smarts are great but hands-on experience usually works much better. I would go with the designer and in most parts of the country an engineer must inspect the plans during the permit process, they do here.

Despite your experience, if you want a one off design that fits you and your family and your specific lot, then you're talking architect. If you want to roam the net and look at a gazillion houseplans and bring 5 of them to someone who can pick one part of one and one part of another and put them together, then you're talking designer. Architects have a better sense of the individual and the whole product and designers are pretty good about drawing hodgepodge into a single podge. It takes a truly talented home designer to create something original that really suits a client. If you don't want or desire something unique and individual to you, then you are probably financially better off going with a home designer. However, don't expect that the home will form a cohesive whole with a single design philosophy, nor is it likely to have each system perform optimally within the structure. That's what a good architect can bring to you.

Whichever choice wins your mind and heart, have the design vetted by both structural engineers and HVAC guys early on. Those are typical details that both trades are very short on ideal planning for.

Thanks for the input, live wire. I hadn't thought of involving HVAC subs in the design phase. Would it be wise to have a plumber's input as well? To the extent it doesn't interfere with the plan's function, I'd like to save money through design elements such as shorter plumbing runs.

I would like to have a luxurious design uniquely suited to me, but don't believe it is practical (i.e., don't think I'll capture the architect's added cost on resale). The floorplans that I have in mind are fairly standard, and I just need someone to draw them up while pointing out any design pitfalls that hadn't occurred to me. I would like to have an architect, but I suspect that--for my purposes--I would receive x incremental value but pay 3x-5x for it.

This won't be my last house, but when I get closer to the end of the line it may make more sense to hire an architect. At least that's the way I am leaning currently.

It may also depend on your lot. If a lot is difficult (steep or oddly shaped) you may need an architect to design the best house for the lot. We have a steep lot with both driveway and utility easements. Our architect did a brilliant job of incorporating our needs and desires into a house that perfectly fits the lot (at least on paper -- we haven't broken ground yet).

Here's link to a chart that compares architect, designer and draftsman.

Here is a link that might be useful: Architect, Designer or Draftsman

having just gone thru the process myself, I would opt for an architect that has worked through your custom home builder. Many times they have a pre-set fee arrangement and it is considerably better than going thru an architect yourself for the beginning. this works only if you have decided on a builder.

my experience, I started out with a designer that was rx through a builder, no discount, good ole boy type, I lost $3500 and a lot of time, and ended up with poorly drawn, incomplete, poorly engineered, pencil drawings. The second designer took the earlier drawings, tried to convert to CAD, but needed an engineer to get involved. I decided to consult with an architect, who suggested totally redrawing and starting from scratch with an engineer. They didn't want to get involved without totally redrawing everything at considerable expense. I decided to go with a second designer at another $3500 to complete the house. We are now under-roof and moving along, but many of the items were not spec'd out as I had specified.
Long story short, talking with my builder one day, he has worked with an established local architectural firm who gives him a flat rate for his clients. I would have probably spent about the same, but would not have wasted as much time, and would have rec'd more comprehensive drawings and more accurate spec's.
sorry about the long post.

Using anyone other than an architect is only a savings if you don't run into any issues, and that's a big IF. We did not use an architect, and we regret it more than we can say. If I ever build again, I will do many things differently, but the most crucial will be hiring an architect for the design and oversight of the entire build. Regardless of the final cost, we firmly feel that it is worth the money and is imperative to the success of the project.
I'm sure that there are many who will disagree, and that is fine...this is just my opinion from someone who learned this lesson the hard way.

dixiedoodle: What problems did you have that you believe an architect will prevent the next time?

Our problems were numerous, very expensive (we're talking hundreds of thousands of dollars), and unfortunately, still ongoing. As such, I can't discuss them on this forum. There are lots of past posts from me though that detail a few of the issues.

I would say that the most important difference between an owner's architect and a home designer (or a builder's architect/designer) is that the owner's architect is the agent of the owner and has a duty to protect the owner's interests. Because of their higher responsibility, training and state license, an owner's architect is held to a higher standard by courts and liability insurance is therefore necessary and expensive.

A $1.25/s.f. fee might keep a home designer afloat if he/she can crank out designs fast from a home office and their spouse has a good job but it probably wouldn't cover the overhead expenses of an architectural office.

Unfortunately, even paying more for design services is no guarantee of success. You'll find a wide range of competence in both home designers and architects. An architect is required to spend 9 to 10 1/2 more years in training than a home designer but that doesn't mean the architect would necessarily provide a better design for a home. I didn't learn anything about home design in architecture school but I did have to face some terrifying design critics and learned how to produce documents and contracts that would protect a client's interests.

Thank you for your perspective, macv.

The designer charging $1.25/sf has a full staff and an office. He has been very successful over a 25 year period. I've included a link to his website in case you are curious.

Your insight regarding training and competency is helpful. It's very difficult for a lay person to assess a professional. What are the best indicators that a given architect or designer will do a good job providing residential design services?

Board certification is a good start in assessing a physician. The quality of the medical school, and especially, the residency/fellowship is very useful (and US News does a reasonable job ranking med schools). White hair and a soothing bedside manner are not so useful.

Is there a meaningful architectural certification? Does the school matter much? (If so, which schools are best?) Can I detect quality by looking for some characteristic in examples of his/her prior specifications lists? Should I look for one who employs a particular methodology that shows more thoroughness? (If so, what is that methodology?)

Here is a link that might be useful: Sabo Design Associates

Talk to the designer's previous clients and look at his designs. If the news is good and you're sure a high school draftsman won't be assigned to design your project, go for it. I would have to charge five times that fee even though I'm fast, cheap and experienced. On the other hand, I insist on providing a written code and zoning review as well as structural engineering and construction observation services. I also review the drawings with the building department before giving them to builders. Many would say those are services a builder will provide for free. That is true but a builder is not your agent and will not put your interests ahead of his therefore IMHO not providing those services exposes an owner to unreasonable and unnecessary financial risk. I would make sure the designer does not have a close relationship with the builder you want to use. The designer should work for you, be responsible to you, and put your interests ahead of those of the builder.

This particular designer seems to be quite skilled. The 50's style hand drawn drawings seem to fit with the 50's style houses but the lettering is from an even earlier era and is irritatingly oversized and archaic. I'm curious if they still use blueprints.

Thanks, macv. That's a good point regarding the high school draftsman. I'll be sure to verify that. It's common for law firms to assign junior lawyers once a client is signed. I imagine the same thing happens at large architectural firms. Still, I wasn't thinking of that until you mentioned it.

I plan to have a structural engr review and stamp any plans that I use, and I won't seek construction observation services. If I build, I will probably act as GC so that I can control quality and costs.

Macv, I agree with everything you said....Including those pesky too often snooty critiques! As Macv said an architect has a minimum of a year degree and more often today 5-6 to become registered. They have spent countless numbers of sleepless nights designing /drawing etc and endless days in class or studio and mind numbing critiques of their work only to get out of school and go to work for a firm for too little money and far to little actual job experience unless they did internships or summer jobs etc. They then spend 2-5 years in the intern program before being allowed to sit for a 5 day exam( easier today with computers and offered many times a year vs twice prior to computers)to become registered. Now as said above that doesnt guarrantee good design or good clients. A home designer can buy a computer out of high school and a drafting program and call himself a home designer and have at it. There is no regulations, laws or rules stopping them in most cases. Again there are some very good designers without degrees or a certificate or license. You can best judge them by looking at their work, skills, details, and talk to their past clients. In the end often you get what you pay for. I look at architecture as investment. The home is most peoples largest lifetime inbvestment and you should do everything in your power to get a good design. It should first and foremost function well for you and your family and it should be aesthically pleasing. However if you ever plan to sell if its well planned and thought out it will usually sell faster and for more money. In times like now...I bet a lot of people wish they had better plans to compete in this nasty market!

We used an architect. It was very expensive and maybe a designer could have done the same job. Our home is still under construction, but it is framed and so far I love the floorplan. Only time will tell if it was worth it, but so far we are very happy with the results.

We had a pretty good idea of what we wanted-the architect put it all together and made it all cohesive. We first choose an architect, made the plans and then bid the plans to several builders and then choose the builder.

Our architect knew all of the set back requirements. Our architect however did not know much about the costs of building-so there are a few things we did that added cost to the build without us realizing it. I wish we had chosen a builder earlier in the process for more guidance on cost aspect.

I understand this thread is nearling a year old...but sorry to bump it up, I think its important for people to read. It seems I read more often now threads of unhappy people paying their "designer or drafter" 1,2,34K+ dollars and getting horrible plans that can not be built in return as well as many wasted days and headaches. I think bumping this thread up might give people a second thought on architects vs other options.
Like any professions, there are greats and duds. Just bc you hire an architect doesnt make them perfect instantly. However there is a much better chance vs a drafter for sure. Do your homework, ask for examples of past work and references.
My opinion, and what I emply on a daily basis of an architect is and does for their client:

1. client's needs are #1. They are paying you, you suggest what is best for them. They should be able to trust you to find a design that fits their needs, budget, style, lot, local codes, etc. They also rely on you to assess claims contractors make or review change orders.
I review every single change order that comes up, researches the "true" price of it, and decide if it is needed, too high, etc. Alot of times this will be a "scope" contract, or how far you want the architect to go with your project. Designing, drawings, code review, and bidding is one thing. Construction administration is another. I think anyone hiring an architect should keep them onboard throughout the project. Contractors can be like car mechanics...they could attempt to sell you a 2x4 for the price of an I beam.

2. listen, listen, listen. They should listen to what you say, and make it come to life while offering up design suggestions for efficiency in the plan, construction, etc. Listening is extremely important, even down to the tiny details.
When we start a new project, we take them through 3 meetings of "design developement". We go over everything from construction types, room requirements and sizes, casework requirements, products and materials, even down to floor finishes and trim types. We do a drawing, present it, revise it, etc etc until it is correct 100%.

3. suggest products and materials to best suit YOUR needs, NOT what the builder gets the best discount on. They should know about new technologies, employ energy efficent designs and construction methods, etc. I have a friend who's builder brainwashed him into thinking they had a "super high efficient house" and paid more for it. They got 2x6 walls with r-19 fiberglass batt insulation (clear wall more like r-11), builder grade vinyl windows that leak 2 years later, and a goodman 90% efficient furnace. In Iowa? Please, that barely meets code. Had I known him then, there would have been many changes I would have recommended.

4. They should know that is going on in your local code. The arch should submit plans to the city for approval. If they need engineered outside of what the city requires from an arch, then they should do that as well.

5. They are a professional with a lot of money and time invested into their degree. My bachelors of arch required 5 years of 21 credits each semester, followed by 2-3 years of interning under specific categories, and then 9 exam tests.

but as mentioned, designers can be just as good, and for less money. As the owner, its your job to call around, do checks on past projects, drive and look at their projects, meet with them to discuss your ideas to get a feel for their interactions, etc. Sometimes we are expensive and certinaly not needed. But more times then not, it can be well worth your money.

basically the list can go on. but you get the idea

All those extra services (job supervision, material consultation...) seem like a perfect recipe to cause cat-fights between the general contractor and the architect with the homeowner in between.

Are people really so detached from their home construction that they need yet another layer of supervision? There are already the GC and the building inspector...

And to offend the resident architects on this board: I fully understand the need for an architect for a complex structure like a power plant, a highrise, a theater etc. but for a single family home???

Seems like a waste of academic education to make your living designing mud-rooms, walk in closets and pantries. Especially because the number of people who are willing to risk something out of the ordinary seems very low so it must be supremely boring to crank out yet another Tudor LOL!

offended? No, not at all. Infact i agree with you. There is not much money in residential design, which is why I do not do it. I do schools, large office buildings, libraries, etc. Houses are on the side, typically helping people out more then anything. But I do enjoy them. Most of my comments are based from my commercial experience, however can flow right over into the housing market.

However to respond to your other comments, it would seem you have very little knowledge of what the general public is really like. Maybe YOU wouldnt pay someone to help you, but a good 80% of the client have no clue about construction, do not care, would not know what to look for, and prefer to have a professional handle it.
And to assume a GC or inspector is there to watch? please.
Inspector only shows up to look at items a couple times during the process... they do not know what the design or intent is, and do not care. GC is there to make money, and go as quickly as possible to move to the next to make more money. Some (not all of course), have very little attention to detail, especially over their subs.
If you are comfortable handling everything, great, save yourself money. Some people are not, (or just do not want the stress) and that is their choice.

And to also imply that an arch is not needed for a single family home is both true and faulse. A simple 1600-2000 sqft ranch? no, probably not unless they were looking for really custom ideas. However some of the 3500-5000sqft monsters on here? I would tend to argue most definately...
Cranking out another Tutor is certainly not boring, its your job. Typically, you like your job. And one house is different from the next. Sure, maybe similar details, but different, new clients, new site, new challenges every single time. I look at people sitting behind a computer putting numbers into spread sheets or doing taxes...talk about boring to ME...but its their job. My wife is an accountant, she seems to really enjoy it. I would hate it.

By the way, catfights happen no matter what. if its not between the arch and gc, then its between the owner and gc. TRUST me, archs have far greater pulling power over a gc then an owner does....

Frankly you could take the DIY route for many things in life, be it out of necessity or choice. I doubt this board attracts those who are detached from building a home--whether they are DIY or choose to work with professionals.

Regarding architect vs designer, we interviewed both and found that despite differences in qualification standards (none for designers vs a lot for architects) there are varying degrees of talent among both. We ended up hiring an architect. He cost more, but we felt he also provided a greater value to us. His plans are more detailed; they have a foundation in classical architecture; he is very knowledgeable about building processes/materials; and he will serve as our agent in the bidding process and during the build). He is an important part of the team we are assembling to build our dream house and protect our investment.

PS - Thank you to the professionals who frequent this board -- you are very appreciated. Your "mud-rooms, pantries and walk in closets" are part of something far greater in which we spend a lot of time living our lives, raising families and creating a lifetime of memories.

I essentially agree with lzerarc; I designed dormitories, hotels, hospitals, and office buildings as well as the adaptive reuse of old abandoned mills and commercial markets (Faneuil Hall Marketplace & South Sea Seaport), but it's very demanding work and I eventually got tired of the pace and ridiculously demanding clients so I started renovating houses because it was easy and rewarding. My clients appreciated me more and I had no boss. For some clients I have renovated their house more than once and designed their vacation homes. Renovation of homes is primarily problem solving and I enjoy it but I don't work on brick buildings having built too many of them for clients like Harvard, Princeton and IBM. Brick sucks to use the modern vernacular.

School for me was 7 1/2 years for a bachelors of arch which was upgraded by mail to a masters after Yale upgraded their degree.

The idea that people don't need another layer of supervision for a house is an observation from dreamland unless jrldh was being sarcastic or ironic. On a dormitory or hospital it was rare that I had to ask a contractor to correct any part of the work, but on a single family house I usually have to write up a long list of problems every time I make a site visit. Some of the mistakes are simply laughable especially if the local inspector has signed off on it. It is obvious to me that these kinds of mistakes are typically never discovered so the homeowner is happy with the result until much later. If you don't believe me I can post some pretty amusing photos of code violations that had already been accepted by a building inspector.

On a recent site visit I asked the contractor when he was going to repair a hole in a masonry fire wall in a 2 family house and he said he planned to cover it up when the inspector came by. I asked him how he planned to hide it from me and he got the point.

As far as cat fights go, the first one I got into one was in '71 in New Hampshire when a French Canadian roofer told me in broken English that he wouldn't install roofing felt under the asphalt shingles and demanded to know what the reason was for installing the felt. I told him that the reason to install the felt was in order to get paid and he turned and yelled to his foreman to put it on. I was an instructor in the Army for a short time in '67 but it taught me to keep comments direct, dispassionate, and acknowledge no other options.

Macv
I like your style and approach ;)
I try to do similar things, sometimes giving reasons, sometimes not caring to explain myself. I wanted my structural engineer to move his column 8" today because it would otherwise mess up my storefront framing. He asked why dont I just adjust my framing since it was not even done yet anyway...I told him because I pay him, thats why. He agreed to move the column.

Well, I wager a guess that there are many builders who won't take your attitude that they are all clueless amateurs or rip off artists well. As a homeowner, I would not want to work with an architect who has such a dim view of builders because I would not want to deal with the clash of egos that seems inevitable.

And being an engineer myself with a masters degree I have some clue what's involved in complex projects so I'm sorry to say, a typical residential design is not rocket science. I can't imagine having to work on something that trivial in my profession on a daily basis. I'd be bored to death.

jrldh, an architect forces a builder to build to the contract documents in order to protect the owner's interests and provide quality control for a project but I'm not surprised you would not understand that.

There is no reason for an architect to tolerate a mistake by a builder and there is no reason for it to become personal as everything seems to become for you.

You clearly have no idea what is involved in the design of a building but that doesn't prevent you from making insulting assumptions about it. When Manhattan42 is inactive you are the Garden Web resident troll interrupting discussions with irrelevant negative comments.

lzerarc, you will find that there is a cult of architect haters here on this forum believing that the design of a house is so easy the use of an architect would be a waste of money. Rather than allowing architects to give advice to homeowners and offering advice of their own they often challenge everything an architect says usually for trivial or irrelevant issues.

Once there were several architects participating on the forum and they had even put together a set of FAQ's (edited by Smokychimp) to help homeowners and the FAQ's were surprisingly insightful and well written. Eventually they got tired of the insults and left and for some reason the FAQ's were taken off the site.

Now the owner's of the site want someone to moderate a new set of FAQ's for each forum and it appears no one is interested. Maybe jrldh would be willing to help out; how hard could it be to design a house?

jr
having worked in the field in construction for 6 years, I get a general idea of the attitudes toward ALL parties, including engineers. Its not always the GC we are worried about, its the 1 month experience $10/hr guy they have out there too....

I had a lengthy reply, but decided to just simply agree to disagree. Its clear where you stand, no reason to continue the debate.

For a flat lot and standard construction, you may be better off with a reputable design-build firm. This way there is no disputing who is responsible for problems that might develop. However, you should really like what the firm has done in the past since they are not likely to be as flexible or creative. Also, I would get an interior designer to specify all the finishes for your bid so you don't get any unexpected surprises on the costs from low-ball allowances.

You are taking a risk whatever route you go. You have to consider who will be protecting your interests to insure quality at each stage.