You should try to maintain as much control as possible over the project so hire the architect first. Consider hiring a GC for a fee to act as a consultant and work with you and the architect as a design team. When the project is bid the GC would also bid and if he is successful, the fee or part of it might be deducted from the first invoice.

First things first. Get the house designed by the architect. Then get a builder to construct it. As JDS recommends, retaining an experienced and compatible builder during the design stage can pay dividends if the two can work constructively together. That usually means they know one another and have worked together successfully in the past. If they don't know one another, problems and egos often arise.

we didn't do a new build, but a very extensive renovation and addition. we hired the architect first, but part of the planning was that after the initial drawings he had a builder he works with frequently (and does projects of similar scope), give us a non-binding estimate so that we could tailor the final plans/scope to make sure it was in budget. We bid out the work, but as it turns out that is the builder we ended up using because we felt it would be a good fit personality wise, his price was competitive, he was obviously familiar with the architect and his preferences/quirks (they all have them), and his references (and our impressions of the work he had done) checked out very well. We're about 1 month into construction (6-7 month timeframe hopefully), and so far, so good (fingers crossed).

Thanks for the opinions so far. Kind of like how freeoscar touched on, my main worry would be that I would lose the ability to seek other opinions and options. Ideally I would want to work with an architect/builder who have worked well in the past and have a good relationship, but I would like to have the freedom to ask around and learn a bit more about the process. I just wouldn't want to get taken advantage of in the process without doing my due research. Is there any way to avoid that?

Would the architect/builder simultaneous start reduce that possibility or increase it?

"I would lose the ability to seek other opinions and options"

I've been designing buildings for a very long time and I recognize how much times and attitudes have changed. It is now popular for homeowners to research the design and construction of homes online and with friends and it can be very helpful but it should not be considered equal to the advice and guidance from professional designers and builders acting as your consultants. Its simply impossible to learn what these professionals have learned over many decades in a matter of weeks or months. So, take the time you need to "ask around" before hiring professionals since doing it concurrently will slow the process and make it more difficult if not more expensive.

It's tricky. So many of us do this once, and never get the benefit of hindsight.

We went through the process as best we could and gave all pros all the deference due their long tenure in the industry yadda yadda.

You are working with individuals. There's no Costco of custom homebuilding. There's no customer service to complain to. There's no money back guarantees.

Our architect disappeared for 3 critical months. He had family problems. And our project got delayed, the builder backed out (I guess) and I had to take over to get it back on track. You never know what might happen to someone. Our bad luck I guess.

We have a nice house. We actually got some features we had cut to meet budget put back in, and the final tally for construction was a bit less than the architects preferred builder. 6 or 7% I figure overall.

In my opinion it is very difficult for the random person to figure out if they are getting good value. I found it easier to look at the entire project as a whole, and not the sum of the parts.

Good luck!

Designing and building a custom home is a team effort that involves individuals with expertise in a variety of different disciplines. When you assemble your team, it's important that every member of the team: 1.) has the necessary expertise to execute their individual scope of work, 2.) understands their role and the role of others on the team, 3.) will work collaboratively and effectively with other team members, and 4.) will work toward the shared objective of realizing the owners' vision of "home."

I submit that Architectrunnerguy's suggestion to assemble the members of team concurrently is both doable and a cost-effective way to design and build a home that appropriately balances the constraints of site, aesthetics, functionality and budget.

Best wishes for a successful project.

Go in alphabetical order.

@MarkBischak, please help me understand this (I'm a licensed professional engineer so I'm not that bright): someone is going to select a team to design and build their home valued at, say, more than $500K based on alphabetical order? Certainly you have more valuable insight to contribute to the discussion than that.

Charles, you have to understand Mark's very strange sense of humor.

Charles-

A is for architect, B is for builder...

I agree with the collaborative team approach. Using a pre-construction consultation agreement like we do in the design and development stage can provide significant value and reduce wasted resources. Hiring a designer without builder involvement can sometimes lead to loss of control with the budget.

Interview architects and ask for builder references. Interview builders and ask for architect references. Just because an architect and builder have never worked together, doesn't mean they won't make a great team. I find if you choose the right players, outcomes are always favorable.

Hire an architect first.

An architect is trained in architectural design, landscape design, interior design, urban planning, wood engineering, concrete engineering, steel engineering, art, physics, english, law, graphics, math, psychology, economics, history, and more. After they graduate from an accredited educational institution, they must work under the guidance of licensed architects for at least three years. After that they are required to pass (when I took it) a nine part, thirty-three and a half hour long licensure test.

I'm not sure what is required to become a home builder, but I'm sure it varies from State to State.

One should choose the highest qualified person to lead their team.

We hired the builder first, but already knew what architect we would be using based on referrals. To Marks point; I think "highest qualified" here would be a matter of semantics. An architect is highly qualified to design your home, but not to build it. Vice versa for the builder. Who's to say who is "more" qualified?

I'm not saying Mark is necessarily wrong, but I think experiences would probably differ across the board, as ours did. I'm glad our builder was involved in the architectural process from the beginning. He caught several things in motion on the plans that were not up to date with our County codes, and also had great input during design that would impact costs. The architect wouldn't even say the word cost....

Well, you have to design it before you can build it so the proper sequence is already determined. Mark's comments deal specifically with who would be the best person to lead a collaborative design process not who should be left out to it.

A builder does not need to be the leader of a collaborative team in order to review the design for code compliance or to provide cost estimates and an architect would not need to provide cost estimates if that role was already filled. Its not a contest; the participants should contribute what they know best. But someone needs to be the leader other than the owner.

The important issue is that if a builder is the leader of the collaborative design team, there will be an unavoidable conflict when construction starts and the builder's role abruptly changes from advisor/consultant to arms-length contractor.

We found our builder first. We found our architect second. We love them both, but there was a communication disconnect between them, so we ended up having to hire a second architect to create the actual buildable blueprints from the first architect's draft.

Neither architect is involved in the actual build process (other than that the first architect and I have become friends and go out for coffee when our schedules allow, and I've texted her design questions a few times, but I am not pestering her any more than I pester my best friend who used to work at a granite distributor before she became an at-home mom. :) There have been a few times where I've wished I had some architectural hand-holding (deciding drywall features, cabinetry colors, granite-panic) but overall it hasn't been too stressful going it alone.

Finding our builder first worked well for us because we didn't want to do a competitive bidding process -- we just wanted the builder in town with the best reputation for building on an extreme slope.

I can see how, with different variables, it would be best to choose the architect first, and perhaps choose the builder based on the architect's recommendations or based on a competitive bidding process. Some people even choose their architect first, and then the architect tags along when shopping for the lot.

I'm a bit confused - why would the builder have to catch the code compliance issues? I've been assuming artitects would design in accordance with all relevant codes for the jurisdiction. Is that incorrect, or was this just a case of catching a mistake?

Architects are required by the state law where they are licensed to design in compliance with all applicable laws, regulations and ordinances. I believe the earlier comment may have been rather tongue in cheek!

Not tongue in cheek, it actually happened. No one is perfect, including our architect!

If the builder is paid to act as a consultant to the owner and collaborate in the design process, the owner would normally expect the builder to take the same interest in code compliance as the rest of the team.

The state requirements for an architect are a little different than summarized earlier.

(b) In designing a project, an architect shall take into account all applicable state and municipal building laws and regulations. While an architect may rely on the advice of other professionals (e.g., attorneys, engineers, and other qualified persons) as to the intent and meaning of such regulations, once having obtained such advice,anarchitect shallnot knowingly design a project in violation of such laws and regulations.

Sunny Days wrote, "...it actually happened...". What was it that happened?

I think an architect goofed.

Like everyone else, it can certainly happen. In architecture, it may often happen as the result of changes after the design has been fixed and "final" drawings/specifications completed. Something gets changed "over here" and the ripple effects of that change may not get carried through the rest of the drawings and specs. It happens.

@Mark Bischak, Architect What do you think of this article? https://www.washingtonpost.com/business/2018/11/05/what-you-need-know-before-building-custom-home/