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

The additional pix confirm for me that the piece feels too large for that spot. Do you have another place that it can hang where it will have some 'breathing room'? As for 'just right', don't worry about that, as there is no such thing. Decorating is subjective, and in the end you should do what pleases you (and your DH, except for corners LOL). If you are happy with the piece there, then keep it there. A perfect example of no such thing as 'just right', as several of us would move it, others think it will be fine there, once centered.

Sorry to get on the soapbox here, but I can't let some of this stand as "fact." A lot is being left out of this debate. I do not think either sociology or biology has solved the "nature/nurture" debate. Not all animals rape to get sex. Many animals have complex mating rituals. There are many successful mating strategies, rape is only one. Nature is full of biological diversity, it's not one thing or the other. And I don't know where the child molesting, old woman raping and bestiality comes in, since that isn't procreation based. It is violence based and power based, which is related to procreation/survival. But violence and power is only ONE procreation strategy. There's seduction, sneakiness, hormonal cues, and some animals just have sex all the time. Others aren't in the mood at all for most of their lives. And as far as bestiality, I dunno. Dogs sometimes try to hump cats, but sometimes, even when the opportunity is there, they just don't. Not in the mood I guess. And men aren't the only beasts. As for the hard wired nurturing mommies, if she doesn't want the baby, a woman can kill it very easily, and some do. Even primate societies couldn't survive with the level of violence your estimation of "natural" behavior would engender. The brakes aren't just goody goody, they ensure survival of the species. How can a human population survive without consequences, consequences come from your fellow humans whom you need to survive. Higher primates have many types of social rituals, not all of them violent. It's a balancing act. Primate observers have observed the most horrific violence in those societies, and yet it does not happen all the time, why? Because in a species that needs to live together as a group to survive, there are ALWAYS consequences of some sort. Even primates do not do violent things to their friends, because they do not want to get away with it, the relationship meets other needs they have besides their sexual urges. Yes sex is a powerful urge, but it is not the only urge. Survival doesn't just depend on sex--you have to survive and your offspring have to survive for your species genepool to continue. How could we survive if every person was trying to rape and pillage every other person? That's illogical. Human life without consequences is an oxymoron. Imagining a "natural" life for humans where there are no consequences has never existed and never will. It is actually unnatural. Human existence is social, and social behaior is built on consequnces. What those consequences are is a varied as the human genepool. Violence can be counter productive to survival in the long run, which is why violent events in nature are only part of the picture. Animals are violent, but not all the time. You can rape and pillage some people some of the time, but you can't rape and pillage all the people all the time indefinately. And I know enough decent men and women to know that some are just decent to the core, hardwired that way. Whether it is in their genes or what is still somewhat of a mystery and will keep the biologist and psychologists up to their ears in grant money for many years to come. Sorry, but there is just as much evidence to suggest that our hardwiring also includes compassion, a very valuable survival mechanism, in addition to violence. Humans are social animals. As long as we have societies, there will be a need for compassion. It exists in primates right along with the violence. They have the whole spectrum available to them, and so do we. Luckily our brains give us lots of survival tactics, thousands more than even the smartest primate. The biggest problem with violence is if you live by the sword, you die by the sword, while the sweet quiet guy lurking in the corner canoodles your conquest and passes on his genes to the future. Consequnces or not, he doesn't rape because he doesn't have to.

My sympathies to you, Cube... yah, we all have a tendency to sell our souls to the devil for companionship, what the heck, that's how things work.. i think some men are encouraged by other men that this is cool way of talking.. (maybe to themselves, but they forgot we don't care to hear their editorial comments!)... my ex had a mild form of the same and he was SHOCKED that a colleague had gently ribbed him for being a sexist becuase he didn't think he was.... so if more guys would nudge each other to say "hey, that's NOT cool".. maybe it would happen less.. I get annoyed if I'm talking to a man and his eyes are roaming to every woman who is passing.... message I get is taht they are not listening to me... sometimes I will say something like "is everything ok? you seem distracted"... it's rude behavior.... a small amount of it, ok, i can also be distracted by things passing in the foreground, but it can get really distracting if you are trying to talk to someone who is totally distracted! The way I once handled a situation -- I had been told that if I was as pretty as this particular celebrity, then my guy would have bought me ten of the same type of cute baseball hat as she was wearing... I was shocked... I told him I expected the hat in the mail ASAP.... he never made another such remark again.. (it never worked out between us....and I don't feel bad about it).