I agree with Ichabod and jannicone: "...(most) people seem to muddle through"..."...if you want your house to inspire you--get an architect"...thus it all depends on what one wants, doesn't it?

Architects never did have perfect control over the SFR housing market in America, and the AIA hasn't asserted itself successfully. As we have seen, most SFR homes come from plan houses, AIBD members, or draftsmen. Trying to shame or cajole homeowners into using an architect has little effect.

Compare to real estate brokers. NAR still has considerable clout in the real estate markets, having purchased enough Congresscritters to keep their near-monopoly. New technology, e.g. Trulia/Zillow has not completely disrupted this situation, although it has forced some changes, like the open MLS. Although the NAR may be fighting a losing battle in the long run, there's no denying that they protect the membership that generates their fees, like a farmer protects his cows.

Or look at the NAHB, the BIA, and the trade associations. Their lobbyists in Washington get paid big money to make sure Congress writes favorable legislation and regulation.

Think of the code-- who has the most influence there? Insurance industry lawyers, not architects.

Consider the Fed. They didn't lower interest rates to make the AIA billings index go up, they did it to reflate the housing market after the mortgage bankers and their Wall Street enablers nearly blew up the global economy. Janet Yellen answers to Goldman Sachs, not the AIA.

Compared to all these organizations, the AIA is like a mouse among elephants. Let's face it, architects simply don't have the power to protect their own turf, much less monopolize home design in America. That ship has sailed.

In truth, most architects are not good designers; in spite of extensive training it remains a rare talent that requires experience to develop to maturity. Most of the tasks involved in the design of buildings require skills in problem solving and documentation for which computers are very helpful. In an architect's office only a small percent of the staff would be asked to develop design ideas and the rest would be expected to manage and document those ideas. Often those designers are the owners of the firm since the other skills are far more common and less expensive to hire. Those designers often also have good presentation skills but that role is being usurped by 3D/BIM software. This division of roles tends to separate computer drafters from designers but with advancements in software that is also changing in large firms but not so much in small firms.

Firms that specialize in single family house design are much smaller than the average architectural firm and the staff members must have a wide range of skills and freehand drawing is still one of them simply because it is faster and more expedient than CAD because CAD demands much more information than is needed or available in the preliminary phase of a design. A CAD drawing wants to know exact rather than approximate dimensions and that forces many decisions to be made in the wrong order of importance. That can be taxing and distract from the most important design issues. Just sitting in front of a monitor all day looking at drawings that have no reference scale can cripple creativity. As I often tell members here, maintaining an appropriate design sequence and procedure is essential to good design.

I use CAD for the existing condition drawings of renovation projects but then go back to hand drawing, then test those ideas on the computer. Designing on the computer is usually inefficient and costly for my clients or for me if I have a fee limit but more importantly it wears me out and I can lose my original design inspiration or fail to develop it.

In 2011 only 6.2 % of the revenue of US architecture firms was from the design of single-family homes and much of that was for additions and remodeling. That hasn't changed much since 2011 so architects and the AIA have little involvement with one and two family home building as an industry. I don't recall the design of homes being mentioned in design school nor do many residential architects bother to be a member of the AIA.

Sometimes I get the impression that the general public has a false impression of what most architects do for a living.

Scone911, I don't think this discussion (and certainly not my comments) were about "control" of the residential market in the U.S. or elsewhere. And the AIA, for all of its many benefits, is a voluntary professional society, which architects may choose to join or not--membership is not required to acquire or maintain a license in architecture. To me at least, the value of the this thread is what one gets when, say, one uses a house plan from the plan factories, does their plan themselves on a CAD system from the local software store, or has an experienced and creative architect design their home. In just about all cases the rain will be kept from the inside of the house, but after that the value and return on investment differ substantially.

Of course, a stock plan will work for many folks, and they can adjust their lives to the restrictions of the stock plan. A lesser number of folks may want to design their own home (it's the North American tradition to cut and clear 40 acres and build their home from the downed timber after all) and enjoy the results. Still fewer will use an experienced and creative architect who will design the home around the way the family lives for constant inspiration and joy.

Different options for investment and for a return on investment!

PS: As a retired architect and past architectural school Head, I fully support the comments of JDS and the uses/limitations of computers and CAD systems in early design.

When I think of architects, I think of beautiful glass office buildings, libraries, hospitals, museums... the big stuff- structures that are not just built for function but make a statement and make you feel something. The children's area in our big local library just makes me feel majestic and bright and cheery- and it's not because of they kitten and rainbow posters hanging on the wall. Its a beautiful building and that particular area was obviously given so much thought for the kids. I love it! So yeah, I think of stuff like that when I think of architects... and some "fancy" houses. Not saying I'm 100% right but just speaking as a non-architect general public voice, haha.

Our initial feasibility study had bent up index cards, cardboard, clips of pictures of trees, grass, pools, toy cars, cubes of plastic and tongue depressors. ;-) You needed to SEE it conceptually and move your head around it. We laid it all out on a scale site plan. Then - we had a 3D site thing cut out of layers or chipboard and starting with little buildings on it, etc. That tactile part of the overall design process was critical - it was warm and organic and not CG on a computer. It was PERSONAL.

I would love to see a pathway for lots of young architects to make a decent living designing individual homes for middle class and working class Americans. That would be a win-win for all. But I don't see that happening, and I think the AIA has to take some responsibility for this sorry state of affairs.

These days, young people just graduating, who want to specialize in residential, have a tough row to hoe. They are going to have to strike out and invent a non-traditional business model that works, carve a niche somewhere, delivering a product that the market is willing to pay for. So you get people like Ross Chapin selling plans direct to the public, based on previous commissions. Or Artforms, up my way, that's mostly a plan service for small builders. Or Kaplan Thompson doing net zero. These are viable niche markets not well served by developers. The AIA is not equipped to help much; I don't think they get it. That's the point.

There is a potentially huge market for good design. New ways and whole new design subcultures have already emerged via the internet. And the deflationary, leveling influence of technology is only going to get stronger, across all industries. CAD technology is only a small part of the picture.

Amazon is chewing a hole through retail. eBay eviscerated the antiques business. Zappos decimated Mom and Pop shoe stores. The design and real estate industries are ripe for the same kind of disruption, in fact it's already happening. That's why the "get an architect" advice doesn't help much, people need a new approach that's tailored to the times. That's why Houzz exists.

You can try to resist these market forces if you like, but you're just a bug on the windshield.

That tactile part of the overall design process was critical - it was warm and organic and not CG on a computer. It was PERSONAL.

I totally get you, it's great to get a custom item, tailored to you alone. We all deserve that. But we are in danger of losing that experience. And we are losing jobs here in America, not just to overseas competition, but to the computer and robots.

Here's an analogy. When I was a girl, there were "little dressmakers" who would run up a simple sheath tailored to one customer. They had the skills to make the pattern on tissue paper, and there was quite a bit of handwork. A middle class woman like my mother might have a couple of these dresses, in addition to the things from the department store, which were sold by a professional sales person, and made in America.

These days, the seamstresses are gone. Even my wedding dress was off the rack. But I can order an endless stream of mediocre cheap clothes from the internet, and never interact with a human being. The local stores aren't offering anything exceptional, just more cheap junk, so why bother shopping there?

I can see something like this happening in the building industry. Let's say you get on a website, type in your requirements and location. A factory in some low cost of living area builds the house on an assembly line, using mostly robots. The house is delivered by self-driving truck, lowered into place by crane, bolted to the foundation by robots. The mortgage was acquired on line, and has already been packaged into a mortgage-backed security and sold, via computer, into the bond market. I could then buy a bond fund holding that MBS, again by computer. No need for a human stockbroker.

Minimal human interaction, minimal need for human jobs. This is not the future I want to see, but it's all too easy to visualize.

Here's a less dystopian alternative, that I think realistically recognizes what we are dealing with. Some of the people on the Smaller Homes forum are living in single wide or double wide mobile homes. That's what they can afford, and it's a big portion of the population. The traditional architectural business model doesn't address this market. So these folks don't get the luxury of a true custom home, they get whatever the manufacturer offers, like buying a car. Don't they deserve this custom experience too?

Enter the tiny home movement, spawned by the internet. These little houses are often really clever, and there's lots of handwork. What if there were a way for an architect to interact with 500 or 1000 tiny home clients, via the internet, designing back and forth using drawing software on pads and phones, and uploading to the cloud? No copyright, open access. Then the tiny home client builds the house herself, or finds a tiny home builder in the community to work with. Tens of millions of safe, dry, unique homes spring up almost overnight, like mushrooms. I'd rather see a world like this, wouldn't you?

Scone911, you are confused about pathways and business models for young architects because you don't appreciate the difference between selling a product and selling a service, the tangible vs the intangible.

Big builders and to a lesser degree internet plan sites dominate the single family house design market by turning house design into a commoditized product. This is not what "young architects" signed up for.

As for your most recent post, I couldn't follow it.

I am not a fan of the architecture process at all, not that I have a better way to do it really. Architects are expensive. To say that architects are not expensive because your home will cost a lot and architects are only a small part of that, is a fallacy. For most of us homes are expensive, just because an architect doesn't cost as much as a house doesn't mean it isn't expensive.

I will agree that a good architect will add something to most projects, however, whether they add value is another story. I believe that far too many people hire designers when they need architects and many hire architects when they need designers. Some people simply want what their neighbor has plus 2% (far too many people) and really don't need an architect. However, other people want a draftsman to pull their vision from their head, tell them what is wrong with it, improve it and have it done in a week.

Now for the architecture process. It is one of a few fields that I have to pay for something largely the product of communications, experience and competence without any clue whether I will like the product. I don't like the idea that I will commit to pay someone for work regardless of whether or not they suck at it. I hate percentage of build payments - an architect should get the same fee for design regardless of the finish level of the house. If architects charged a flat fee for a house with a satisfaction guarantee, I would be happy to pay more.

As for the bleak future for dressmakers... this was an interesting train of thought for me. I rarely tell people how much I pay for a suit because they all think I am crazy. How many of the men in this thread who swear by architects have a suit that they bought off the rack? I typically pay something between $2,500 and $4,000 for a suit and every one is made to fit me, designed in the style I want, the fabric that I pick, fully canvased and largely hand sewn. While I agree they are certainly expensive, every one of my suits has paid for itself several times over.

If architects charge so much, why is it the last suit I bought was over 30 years ago at the now defunct Filene's Basement at 70% off? My other suit belonged to my father and my tux belonged to my twin brother.

In my entire career I've never known an architect to change a % of construction cost fee. It's not necessarily fair to either party. I charge a reasonable hourly rate with a budget and have never exceeded the budget. If clients want to lower my fee, they can help speed up the process.

Bry, how would you choose a tailor that you hadn't used before?

I assume that architects charge so much because they believe that to be the fair value of their services and the market agrees. But I don't understand the point of your post. I never said architects were too much, I said they were expensive, are you saying that architects are cheap?

In my area almost all architects charge a percentage of the construction cost. Actually, they charge an hourly design fee which is credited against a percentage of the contract fee if the project is built. I would even be better with a percentage of total cost than what we now have.

@JDS - Almost all custom made suits have a satisfaction guarantee. I have personally sent back a suit that I felt had far too much fabric compression (shiny elbows) far too fast for super 120s wool and the tailor remade it after almost 2 years later and apologized as they used a finer wool than they were supposed to. I do agree it is not the same, I know what I want in a suit but have no idea about a house really.

Just to clarify -

ex·pen·sive - costing a lot of money.

val·ue - estimate the monetary worth of (something).

Architects are expensive, college is expensive, accountants are expensive, lawyers are expensive, houses are expensive, cars are expensive, suits can be expensive. None of those things are bad values just because they are expensive. But even if they are great values it doesn't mean that they are not expensive.

^ It's so difficult to measure "quality" in any profession with a big subjective component. I have trouble picking doctors. How do you know they are any good until you have some experience with them? I don't have the expertise to judge the quality of my surgeon's skills, I can only research his record, get recommendations, but in the end it's a lot of blind faith. I suppose that's how some people see architects, decorators, garden designers, et. al.

Maybe that's why so many people come into this site, second guessing their plan, even when they are working with an architect or designer. They don't have the expertise to judge the design. Why would they? So they come in looking for another opinion, and get crowdsourced. There may be a solution emerging in there somewhere.

"Adding value" is also difficult to quantify. You would think, if architects added measurable value, the NAR would be doing studies on it, they have market research people. Instead, we have checklists of must-haves and trends, because that's easily quantifiable.

Houses are sold like cars, either stripped or loaded, and mostly "off the rack." If I'm buying a tract house from a developer, I get to pick from limited options, and may have to take options I don't want.

So you either use an architect, and pay more, not knowing the outcome, or you buy from a developer, and know what you're buying, but it's not custom.

I can see why people say, to heck with it, I'm designing this house myself! How hard can it be? I can easily follow the psychology. :)

As I said, I don't like the architecture process - that doesn't mean I have an idea to make it better. I am pointing out that many consumers don't see the value in paying for the expensive service.

Frankly, we suffer from the same problem. In fact, nearly the exact same problem afflicts CPA's, too many clients who need a CPA trust their financial decisions to a computer program designed for bookkeeping, or tax preparation to a preparer who can't tell you the rules for a qualifying relative. People start a business and run it for years before some catastrophe brings them into the CPA office and they end up costing themselves tens of thousands because they couldn't spend several hundred in the first place. On the other hand, I see people using a CPA who are filing a 1040EZ...

CPA's have just as much trouble proving value as architects and frankly the services we provide are similar in ways. We use knowledge and experience to create value for clients, ours are largely intangible in nature and CPAs are off the hook a bit more because most clients will never figure out if we suck at our job.

Sorry to return to design issues but I have never cared much about the business side of the architecture profession.

Here is an article about drawing by Michael Graves who unfortunately died a year ago tomorrow.

Interesting conversation. It's the same old, same old, ageless story about architects: they're not required; they're a luxury; they're expensive, yada, yada! We've heard it all before and endlessly.

Yet, as scone911 says, when one is sick or injured one goes to the doctor or emergency room, and thereafter does what the doctor(s) say(s) needs to be done--whether or not we even know the doctor(s). Few of us know why the diagnosis is what it is. Few of us know if the prognosis is accurate. Few of us quibble over how the doctor charges, or how much s/he charges. And the old retort, "well, architecture isn't medicine..." is just a lame avoidance of the fact that this is the very same situation with our accountant, the vet, the attorney, the auto mechanic, the computer repair tech and the cable company.

Here's where bry911 over-dramatizes to make a point: "...It (architecture) is one of a few fields that I have to pay for something largely the product of communications, experience and competence without any clue whether I will like the product..."

When was the last time you understood and had the opportunity to choose whether or not you liked the diagnosis and prognosis of your cardiologist? For that matter, when was the last time you understood and had the opportunity to choose whether or not you liked the services and charge for your last maintenance on your BMW? Or for the services of your tax accountant, your estate attorney, your financial advisor, or for the weekly grocery bill?

And bry911 it would be great if all of life came with a money-back guarantee like your wonderful suits. But that's not how life works is it? And, in part, as you well know as an educator, the importance given to specialized knowledge is what gave rise to the various learned "professions" from the Middle Ages, when education, expertise and experience mattered to both the King/Queen and the common folk, who didn't have the necessary education, expertise and experience.

Some of us, at least, think it--education, expertise and experience--still matters, even if there are no guarantees! Especially if there are no guarantees.

By the way, who's your tailor?

Check this firm out. You are unlikely to get this level of design and detailing from a draftsman, an internet plan site or playing around with a CAD program. In fact, not all architects can provide it. Architects are preferred by those who care a lot about design and that is also not everyone but since I only need one or two a year it doesn't matter to me. It does, however, matter when I see someone on the forum in trouble and for whatever reason I can't help them.

Actually, I care very much what the doctor charges, and I'd report any funny business to my insurance company pronto. I also care a lot if the diagnosis and prognosis is accurate, I read the doctors' and lab reports, and I ask questions if I don't understand something. If need be, I get second opinions. That's how I address the problem of not being able to vet the doctor beforehand. But there's still some uncertainty.

In fact, I don't blindly trust any vendor, if I can help it. I need to have some confidence that they are competent and trustworthy, and I do what I can to get evidence to that effect. I don't give someone a free pass just because they have knowledge that I may not have. That's common sense. Buyer beware.

For those of us who have knocked around in architectural circles for more than a little while, we know that there are certain geographical areas in the U.S. (I just don't know enough about Canada to speak to) which have long had very strong and vibrant architectural practices involving single family homes, cabins, barns and the like. I don't mean just 1-2 firms doing good work, I mean many very good architectural firms for which residential design has been a successful part (perhaps the only part) of the practice for a long, long time. The Minneapolis-St. Paul area is one of those as JDS rightly points out in a post above. Seattle, urban areas such as Chicago and New York, certain areas in Texas and California are among those which come to mind where strong architectural design for single family homes has existed for generations.

So, just using myself as an example... just saying "you need to hire an architect" isn't very effective. Here are some things I think would
be more likely to encourage me to consider an architect for a single-family custom build:

-- Architects who share information on how they work, specific options and services they provide, and how much they cost.

--
Architects who provide positive, insightful feedback on designs that
give me a greater understanding of the benefit they provide, the skill
and ability they bring, the unique insights they can offer based on
their education, expertise and experience.

-- Homeowners who
actually hired an architect and can speak positively about their
experiences (NOT homeowners who chose not to hire an architect but want
to insist that everyone else should).

-- Architects and
homeowners who provide insights on how to hire the right architect. That's the REAL key to success with anyone providing a service and perhaps the most intimidating factor (besides cost). I find that the comparisons to other professions don't apply. While I might not understand every aspect of my physician's practice and diagnosis, I have been using the services of physicians my entire life and feel comfortable choosing a physician and understanding the purpose for, and benefits of, my interactions. Same for various mechanics, accountants, and so forth.

And every one of those pictures on that site are "inspiration" worthy. And yet - people wonder why their finished product doesn't give them the same feel - they go to a designer, they give them the pics, they tell them what they want and they end up with a watered down design that doesn't feel "substantial" or that it will last forever and be timeless - and they can't quite put their finger on "why"...

My first house was a "designer" done "custom" home - we designed the entire thing. It's a great house - and it will sell when we put it on the market - but even though we wanted it "different" - there was only so far he could take it and it isn't all that different than the other houses here = even though many of them were spec homes. So this time - we went architect. And can't wait to get it done!

I am really enjoying working with our architect. A one man shop with a couple of draftsmen on staff, but he does the direct design work and does small commercial, multi unit residential developments for developers and true custom homes. His portfolio is unique in that his homes don't all have the same look -- that tells me that he designs for his client, not just to feed his own ego. There are some things he knows much better than me -- some I would classify as artistic such as creating a sense of drama (ok I understand this enought to appreciate it and if I were working with a draftsman, I *might* be able to nail it, but I might miss and it's a 1,000,000+ risk, I don't want to take). Other things I don't have a clue -- snow loads, roof design, etc.. So his input is invaluable. But the one thing I know better than him is how WE live and he respects that and works with it.

Frankly he did use my scketch that I had refined over a period of a year as a starting point and for the most part retained the same flow -- however he didn't feel constrained by it and made it so much better! For instance, because of the lot and the fact that it is a duplex, our side requires a long entry hall -- he created an entry that is fabulous and very funtional.

Of course we've had some rough spots and minor disagreements, but we worked through them. Often he put his foot down when he felt I was overly increasing our square footage -- and he was right. We pay his bills by return mail and they will probably equal to a bit less than 4% of total cost (he doesn't bill according to cost that's just what it will probably turn out to be). But he is saving us money too -- as I told him in December, I am expecting the design, not the details to carry the house -- no pressure there!

Here's where bry911 over-dramatizes to make a point: When was the last time you understood and had the opportunity to choose whether or not you liked the diagnosis and prognosis of your cardiologist?

I think you have stumbled on the best way to prove my point while trying to argue against it. My point is that architects are expensive and people struggle to see the value in it, I have never said that there is not value in it. Then you brought up doctors as evidence of your point.

Well how many of the people reading this right now have an annual physical as recommended by your doctor? In fact, very few people actually have an annual physical which for many years has been recommended. The reason being is they don't see the expense as being worth it. By the way, it turns out they were right, research has show that annual physicals have almost no effect on health, but that is not the point. Even believing that they were beneficial most Americans didn't do them because they didn't want the expense or trouble.

Ask any medical professional how many people proactively treat conditions. Preventative care in the U.S. is some of the worst in the industrialized world mostly because of the expense. In fact, there is one treatment facility that Americans visit more - the emergency room.

We very healthy Americans obviously really value the information given to us by our doctors.

I think it is fair to say that doctors suffer the same problem as architects...

For the past 40 years my annual physicals have been scheduled automatically and are paid for by my health insurance. I find the conclusions drawn from these comparisons to be specious and irrelevant.

I find specious implies irrelevance. But I find the comparisons neither specious, irrelevant or spurious. I think architects struggle to convince people of the value of the expense. While this is an opinion it is well supported by the number of people who didn't use an architect because of the expense. The parallel between any other field that also struggles to convince people that the expense is valuable seems credible enough to me. In fact, it seems incredibly obvious to me.

But, of course, you are allowed to disagree.

This has turned into an interesting conversation. I'm not really part of it at this point but speaking from my point of view - young, middle class, about to build our first home - when I searched for architects in my area, their websites painted a picture of luxury homes and larger establishments. If I had seen anything I could realistically relate to maybe I would have at least wanted to talk to them? It didn't even seem approachable for our budget. Of course that would be great to work with an architect. Oh, and by the way - good websites are soooo important! Practice what you preach and hire an expert! (And keep it updated, we sites designed just three years ago look old school.)

One day we will need an architect but I definitely would want one that seemed down to earth and didn't look down on "regular" houses or people not using architects to build them. Your typical person may begin searching for options to build their home and find house plan collections online and local builders so much more easy to utilize (I'm talking about websites - the way people shop) than an architect's site with a slideshow in flash (ugh) of upscale homes.

I kind of went in different direction there. It's just after reading actual architect points of view, I could think of ways they can appeal to younger and/or more "common" projects (if that is what they really want.) When I worked for an ad agency they would "scare away" some wanna be clients simply because the revenue just wasn't worth their time when they had much bigger fish to fry. (Not saying anyone here or other architects in general are that way - but the websites I browsed made me feel like little ole me wouldn't be a customer they wanted.)

bry911, you just need to stick with your position and be consistent: "...Now for the architecture process. It is one of a few fields that I have to pay for something largely the product of communications, experience and competence without any clue whether I will like the product..."

Your point, apparently, is that you dislike paying for something without knowing if you will like the result, and you imply through your example of your tailor-made suit that you would much prefer an unlimited guarantee of satisfaction as the means to make retaining an architect satisfactory to you.

Of course, that is a pointless position since nothing in life is guaranteed (except your suit from your tailor).

No one is arguing that an architect is not "expensive", although that is certainly a relative term. But granite countertops are expensive. Commercial grade kitchen equipment is expensive. House-wide custom cabinets are expensive. And on it goes. FWIW, an architect's fees for a custom house may well be less than some or all of these.

And we are not considering how much money an architect-designed home may save a family based on design, site conditions, energy conservation, regulatory requirements, yada, yada.

Thus, to make sense of this thread and the wide-ranging discussion, we are left to figure out the true priorities for each and every family when they consider the design and construction of a custom home. Every family's priorities are different: for some an architect-designed home will be at the top of their priority list; for others the granite counters and stainless kitchen appliances will be at the top of the list. Different folks have different strokes. It all depends on what one values most.

I don't think my position has changed. Oddly enough, I had two points. I think there is a correlation between the two points. People don't see the value in hiring an architect to design their house, and once hired, there is a guaranteed expense without an assurance of success. While there are many similar fields, most of those are necessarily uncertain. I don't think architecture has to be that way. I am actually willing to pay more for guaranteed success. Hell Papa John's can guarantee you like your pizza, are you telling me that architects can't offer some assurance that they will produce something workable?

How many times on these forums have we seen people complain because their architect designed a plan completely out of the given budget? Then have to pay extra to chop the plan down. I am not against architects or their services but the business model is laughably archaic. Architects don't use the pay and pray business model because they have to or because it is efficient, they use it because they always have.

There is nothing wrong with that, just like there is nothing wrong with deciding not to play.

As for No one is arguing that an architect is not "expensive" - from an earlier post - "Architects are expensive" is a thoughtless phrase. The entire project obviously will be many times more than the architect's fee....Someone did argue that.

Edit: Of course, that is a pointless position since nothing in life is guaranteed (except your suit from your tailor).

Of all things I have read in this thread, I believe this to be the most erroneous statement. Most things in America are guaranteed. All products (not just my suits) carry two implied warranties by law. The implied warranty of fitness for a specific purpose and the implied warranty of merchantability. These two parts of the Uniform Commercial Code basically say that goods must be fit for the purpose they are intended or even unintended if conveyed and perform in accordance with other goods purchased at that price point. Google them for the specifics if you want.

After reading liv2tell's comment I decided to see what the architect websites looked like in my area. Architects, are you aware that to search for professionals on houzz, the category is "Architects and Building Designers"? Considering the sensitivity here on the difference between the two, I was surprised to see the two lumped together.

Omelet wrote:

So, just using myself as an example...
just saying "you need to hire an architect" isn't very effective. Here
are some things I think would
be more likely to encourage me to consider an architect for a
single-family custom build:

Great post and I agree. To write "hire an architect" is one thing, to illustrate why is something entirely different. Examples below......

-- Architects who share information on how they work, specific options and services they provide, and how much they cost.

That's what I try to do when posting here. And sure, while I'm posting to a specific thread by default, I'm mostly writing it for the lurkers. Here's examples:

Not my first post here but the photo heavy one further down: http://ths.gardenweb.com/discussions/3178541/question-for-architectrunnerguy-or-others?n=24

And I've referenced this blog article numerous times on this forum which emphasis's why working with an architect doesn't have to be time consuming or expensive: http://www.lifeofanarchitect.com/design-in-a-day/

--
Architects who provide positive, insightful feedback on designs that
give me a greater understanding of the benefit they provide, the skill
and ability they bring, the unique insights they can offer based on
their education, expertise and experience.

I put pen to paper from time to time, again, mostly for the lurkers although the owners of the thread benefit. There's nothing like an illustration. What do they say a picture is worth....???? Here's some examples, all of which are less than an hour sketches:

My most recent one...My 2/27 post here http://ths.gardenweb.com/discussions/3635647/first-draft-please-take-a-look-and-give-feedback?n=34

And my first one a few years ago. My 12/6 post [https://www.houzz.com/discussions/need-help-with-exterior-design-of-this-house-dsvw-vd~263597[(https://www.houzz.com/discussions/need-help-with-exterior-design-of-this-house-dsvw-vd~263597)

And a few in between:

Not the post with the colored drawings, my 5/1 post further down. Ross Homes (see their comment further down) actually became a client: [https://www.houzz.com/discussions/need-help-on-floor-plan-details-for-new-build-private-bathroom-dsvw-vd~941477[(https://www.houzz.com/discussions/need-help-on-floor-plan-details-for-new-build-private-bathroom-dsvw-vd~941477)

[https://www.houzz.com/discussions/need-window-size-number-and-placement-help-dsvw-vd~998409[(https://www.houzz.com/discussions/need-window-size-number-and-placement-help-dsvw-vd~998409)

11/3 post [https://www.houzz.com/discussions/help-with-improving-layout-of-kitchen-and-master-bath-walk-in-dsvw-vd~1198458[(https://www.houzz.com/discussions/help-with-improving-layout-of-kitchen-and-master-bath-walk-in-dsvw-vd~1198458)

And one in mid construction: My 12/7 post: [https://www.houzz.com/discussions/garage-too-high-horrified-not-sure-what-my-architect-was-thinking-dsvw-vd~1314071[(https://www.houzz.com/discussions/garage-too-high-horrified-not-sure-what-my-architect-was-thinking-dsvw-vd~1314071)

-- Homeowners who
actually hired an architect and can speak positively about their
experiences (NOT homeowners who chose not to hire an architect but want
to insist that everyone else should).

Here's as example of that: http://ths.gardenweb.com/discussions/3598813/we-fit-an-architect-into-our-budget-and-it-was-so-worth-it?n=17

-- Architects and
homeowners who provide insights on how to hire the right architect.
That's the REAL key to success with anyone providing a service and
perhaps the most intimidating factor (besides cost). I find that the
comparisons to other professions don't apply. While I might not
understand every aspect of my physician's practice and diagnosis, I have
been using the services of physicians my entire life and feel
comfortable choosing a physician and understanding the purpose for, and
benefits of, my interactions. Same for various mechanics, accountants,
and so forth.

Same thread as the one directly above.

While slightly inappropriate, I thought of this thread and the website design comments when I saw this (warning: they curse).

one of my all time favorite homes came from a sketch on the back of an envelope. probably 12 years ago in a very rural area of La. amazing little house

by an amazing builder.

he built it for his woman, then she dumped him once it was done.

so he got a new woman 25 years younger.

last part is just gossip, but all is true.

y'all get back to whatever is going on here.

bry...LOL...ty

bry, fracking hilarious. Have you seen @fynct?

We design and create the plan sets for almost all of our client's projects. It's a skill set / service we have provided for a couple of decades. It all comes down to the talents of the firm you hire. If you're new to this long thread, the overview is that for certain--- There are Design/Builders that are great and others not, just as with architects, interior designers and all of the other trades.

This debate's become silly, especially the part about hiring a doctor vs. hiring an architect. To accept that concept, you must begin with the fallacy that your body and your house are the same -- and they're not.

This discussion was originally about the advisability of asking a builder to prepare house construction drawings from an owner's plan drawing. It has been sidetracked by critiques of architect business models, the role of the AIA and the absence of architects in unspecified parts of the US by members with strong opinions who appear to have not built anything with architect.

The answer, of course, is that anyone can prepare construction documents if they have the appropriate skill set for the work in question. That rule includes architects as well and they should be expected to have the necessary skills but in parts of the US where there is not enough competition between small/sole practitioner architectural firms, bad architects will be able to stay in business. In my area, if you google "architect + zip code" you will find many pages of small architectural firms immensely qualified to design any kind of house at a reasonable fee. A bad architect would not be in business long.

So, in many parts of the US it is possible to find well qualified architects who can be depended upon to add a great deal to the quality and livability of a house but in parts of the US where there are few if any good architects, it would be wise to search for a good design-build firm.

To pretend that the cost of hiring an architect and the question of whether or not you should forego an architect are separate questions is silly. Furthermore, to pretend that the fee structure (business model) of architects is not part of the discussion of the cost of hiring an architect is preposterous.

The question is really simple. Does an architect provide a benefit greater than his expense? However, the answer is very nuanced and complicated and, despite all the people who simply say over and over "hire an architect," it is not the same for everyone. Just because "you will find many pages of small architectural firms immensely qualified to design any kind of house at a reasonable fee," doesn't mean you should hire one. The fact of the matter is that the cost vs. reward of hiring an architect will be different for almost every person. Two people in the same economic positions building the same style and size house may come up with two completely different answers to the question of whether or not they will get value from hiring an architect. As those two people will have different needs.

For example, I was struggling because I may have to move in a few years. In my area great architects may well get you a much more livable home but great kitchens sell homes. Take all the money you would spend on an architect and dump it into the most ostentatious and impractical kitchen on the planet and it will sell faster and for more money than a well designed practical home. This is not something that affects architects only, a good quality builder in my area will lose every time to a crappy builder with a great finish carpenter. And the outside of the house doesn't matter at all. Half of the houses in this city are badly designed mid 70's distorted mid century modern perversions of colonial designs - houses that are 60' long with two windows per floor on the front - the look like giant flat bug heads with eyes too far apart and in a decent area they will sell in less than a week.

That doesn't mean you shouldn't hire an architect (I still did) as there is value above and beyond the initial expense. Especially in a cost plus fee arrangement. However, there are fixed price builders with many years of experience and an impressive body of work who design many of their own houses at significant savings to owners.

So to answer the question - Yes, I would trust certain builders to design a house from my sketch in certain circumstances in certain areas. No, I would not trust other builders to design a house from my sketch or any builder to do the same under other circumstances or in other areas.

.

Edit: I wanted to correct a mistake I made earlier - there are really two fee structures in my area for architects and generally two services they provide. The two services are plan production without spec sheets and full supervision of project including spec sheets. They charge by either the square footage of the project or a percentage of build cost. The fees are a little lower than the national average in my area at about 6% ($8 per square foot) for plan production and 10% ($12 - $15 per square foot) for full project supervision.

I completely disagree and my opinion is based on five decades of designing buildings rather than idle speculation, internet surfing and silly comparisons.

To put it succinctly: If the need for a architect is great, the fee is cheap; if the need is not great, the fee is expensive. That need can be difficult to determine especially for those with little imagination, not that is necessarily a bad thing; people are just different.

I participate here in order to help homeowners but occasionally get embroiled in discussions with others if I think they are misinforming the OP or lurkers. I would only suggest hiring an architect if I thought I was unable to help an OP and their need for professional guidance is great enough to justify a reasonable architect's fee. Unfortunately, finding a good architect with a reasonable fee is something I can't help with either. I would recommend using a design-build firm but I don't think that contract arrangement protects an owner enough and that is very important to me.

To put it succinctly: If the need for a architect is great, the fee is cheap; if the need is not great, the fee is expensive.

You just repeated exactly what I said without the financial words in it.

my opinion is based on five decades of designing buildings rather than idle speculation, internet surfing and silly comparisons.

I can't beat you there because I am not even 50 yet, but I do have a lot of experience with capital project analysis. In fact, I have a PhD in it, while you may well have a lot of architecture experience, we are talking about value analysis and that is my home town. I may know next to nothing about architecture but when we start talking about value analysis for long lived assets - I assure you, I know which hole I am talking out of.

I don't discount your advice or service here, but too many people give the wrote, "hire an architect," answer and every architect here knows it.

I see no application for value analysis for such a simple issue. When all you have is a hammer, everything looks like a nail.

I think we're facing a disruptive battle with technology here. And scone911 touched on it. 3D design "tools" and CG plans and graphics have "empowered" folks with limited artistic and spatial ability to "design" (and perhaps "draw" or "create" is a better word here). I have a saying that I use a lot - "just because you CAN, doesn't mean you SHOULD" - and it could be applied here. Lots of folks don't think they need doctors anymore because they have the internet. Parents don't think kids need vaccinations anymore because of flawed research perpetuated by the internet (and some wacky Hollywood types) and houseplans and designs are readily accessible and "alterable" using fairly easy software. Less and less these days is truly "custom". Fewer Mom and Pop stores, more big box stores. Fewer "lots" sold and more PUD / developments with "architectural review boards" to ensure some homogeneity staffed by folks who know as much about architecture as I do about brain surgery.

Couple this with a more difficult FUNDING and FINANCING process to use an actual architect and we're fighting a pretty bad battle here.

And yet - folks are flocking to infill lots and older neighborhoods for the "character". Irony.

Wouldn't it be cool if a developer wanted to create a neighborhood of architectural homes and gave that service as an ALLOWANCE - encouraging folks to use an architect and create something they would LOVE - and also would decrease the McMansion and the cookie cutter nature of new developments that wear so thin!!!!

@JDS - Let's take this back to the website thing for just a moment. Did you pay for a professional website developer to custom design a page for your practice specifically designed to anticipate the needs of your clients and potential clients? If you did, do you believe that most good architects should?

After reading many of these recent comments, meandering here and there as extended threads almost always seem to do, I had to go back to the OP to see what in the world started this thread. It was: "...do you think solely working with a builder would suffice?...I feel like I would be telling an architect exactly what to do as far as design. But I can see where we might need a draftsman to translate our design into a blueprint? Or can the builder fill the role of a draftsman?"

It's really the old, often repeated question, "do I really need or have to use an architect, or can I just I just build using my own sketch, which someone translates into dimensioned drawings?..."

And the answer, in most U.S. jurisdictions, is yes you can build from your own sketch, assuming you can get design review approval (if required) and a building permit. You may even be able to get financing from your own sketch, or at least from dimensioned drawings of your sketch--depending on the lender and the loan sum to value.

And one can usually find an experienced builder who will work with an owner's sketch, and offer to build from it using some sort of construction contract (favorable to the builder's risk, more often than not).

There are a number of jurisdictions in the U.S. which do require architectural drawings (by a licensed architect) for design review and/or building permit, particularly for homes over a certain area or storeys, in certain site/soil conditions, or in areas designated for special historical or architectural control, but these are nowhere near the majority of jurisdictions.

But at the end of the day, the answer, like so many answers, is really: it depends. It depends on answers to questions like:

--Does the site and jurisdiction where you wish to build require documents and calculations from a licensed professional;

--Is your budget so limited and critical that a 6%-10% architectural fee is simply impossible; is an initial design consultation of $1K +/- out of the question;

--Do you see your house as primarily shelter from the elements and you have no other strong concerns or desires about it;

--Do you or anyone in your family have special needs;

--Are you a rugged and experienced DIY person who gets personal reward from doing everything yourself; have you ever designed and built a house before;

--How concerned are you about a fixed or manageable construction budget, and the level/type of construction expertise and features you will actually receive for your project?

There are other important and useful questions, but hopefully the point is clear: using your own sketches for construction of a home depends on the answers to these and other important questions. And since no two of us are alike or in the same circumstances, the answer to using one's own sketch for building is, wait for it...it depends.

And like all decisions, there will be a series of consequences which occur based on the decision that each of us may make in this type of situation.

PS: And I guess I have to say that CAD, the computer and all of our disruptive technology neither pose any important questions in a situation like this, nor do they provide any particularly useful answers. They are simply a tool, a means to an end, and certainly not the end.

Let's take this back to the website thing for just a moment. Did you pay for a professional website developer to custom design a page for your practice specifically designed to anticipate the needs of your clients and potential clients? If you did, do you believe that most good architects should?

I did for my website and think most artists without the computer graphics skills should. :)

My website has no relevance to this discussion and none of this foolishness is interesting to me. All I want is for GW members to stop discouraging other members from seeking professional design assistance when they find themselves in over their heads.

Live2tell is a good example of someone in trouble who is reluctant to collaborate with a professional designer therefore I have given her a sketch to suggest other ways to organize the spaces of her house. It isn't a complete design becasue I don't know enough about her and her family but hopefully its the beginning of a more professional design process.

No one cares whether you got professional website design for your business or not. Oddly enough, you know your business better than I know your business, and whether or not you should pay for any service. If you decided it was worth the expense and trouble, who am I to say you are wrong? I just don't understand how so many people on this site knows every poster's business without even asking a few questions.

All I want is for GW members to stop discouraging other members from seeking professional design assistance

Can we throw legal and financial assistance in there too?

Lets not forget this post was over a year old and some of the initial advice was spot on before you resurrected it JDS and it went into architect or you'll regret it mode.

But I love these oldies.

HEY if you find the right builder IT can be done!! If there is trouble down the line an architect is needed as most state you don't need them or permits, which is weird to me at times but got to live with it. The right builder can do anything you want to the point of construction as he would know that also!!

Yes there is builders that will say yes and mess things up but there is others that will walk hand in hand to give you what you want.!

Ken