Who did you get along with better, personality-wise? Who were you most impressed with, overall?

Did both fees include assistance throughout the process, from conception to closing? What happens if a problem arises with the builder, or a modification has to be made, which pro would you feel more confident in seeking advice from?

Will you only interview 2 people? (I only ask because my list is like 12+ strong, and that's *just* architects, not any residential designers, lol.)

How did you get a feel for the designer's work/talent without seeing a portfolio of plans/elevations?

An oldie but a goodie! Particularly, here.

Fortunately, in Ontario, we have another choice--architectural technologists, who have formal technical training and licensing.

"it depends"

If you are building inside of a neighborhood with a reasonable amount of uniformity, and tend toward blending in, then a designer may work for you. Be aware, they cannot engineer or "seal" plans to submit to the permitting authority. The designer's role will pretty much end when he / she turns over the plans. If there is engineering required or things to "figure out" on site - that will be the builder's to do... If you need interior design help, you'll be hiring that out, too. A designer will get you a variation on a theme of what you likely already see out there - current trends, etc. They have likely not studied classic architecture, and don't have the hundreds of hours of training that an architect does. Again - sometimes this is fine with folks

An architect will give you a full service experience. (and yes, you'll pay for that) They can submit the plans for permitting / "seal" the plans, they will design from scratch - a more interactive process and are likely the better choice if you want 100% custom or are looking for a style of home that is not often seen in your area / neighborhood. They will design around YOU and should be easier to work with to get things that are different.

One of the differences, is that the architect has a higher likelihood of getting that "it factor" or whatever quality that it is (and likely it's a combination of scale, proportion, design, etc) that ends up being in everyone's "inspiration" photographs, but all too often ends up missing in their execution by a designer.

What jannicone ^^^^^^^^ says.........

You have some good questions to think about from others here. Personally, I would likely to back to the residential designer and ask more questions to figure out how similar his services are to those of the architect. How does he handle the engineering needed to submit plans for permitting? (Where I am this has to go through a separate structural engineer not matter whether the design comes from a designer or architect.) Does he customize stock plans or work 100% from scratch? How does he work with clients to make sure he's designing a house that will fit them and their lifestyle? How involved is he throughout the process, beyond the design stage? How is he different than an architect in the services he provides?

Similarly, I'd ask the architect more about his services - most of the same questions above, plus what additional services he provides beyond those of the residential designer. I often see people assert that an architect will help with things like interior design, but that's very dependent on the architect - ours did not do this.

You'll see a distinct preference for architects on these boards, in my experience, but I'm not convinced that it is as black and white as often presented. We worked with an architect (recommended by our builder) who did an amazing job on an the addition to our house, but he didn't do interior design, for example. We're about to start a custom home and the same builder has said that this time around the person he'd recommend is a very experienced residential designer, who does 100% custom homes, designs from scratch, and follows the process through construction (all things I've been told only architects do). While we loved our past architect, our builder's experience is that he's better with additions and remodels than completely new construction. Meanwhile my mom worked with a well-regarded architect on her house who wasn't a fit stylistically, and it was a frustrating experience of fighting the architect to design for my parents' style, not her own; she also said she'd help with the interior design and ended up being a terrible fit for that, leaving my mom scrambling to find a good interior designer at the 11th hour.

Basically, I think a really good, experienced residential designer can be better than an architect in some cases. It's just up to you to do the due diligence to figure out which is a better fit for you in this case.

These subdivision houses may be different on the outside but I bet they're all variations on the same theme inside. And that's just fine in most subdivisions.

I hope I don't have to answer this question for you to know my answer.

You have a residential designer, who doesn't show plans? Lol. Dumb, to go with that. Period. I could spend paragraphs here, but I won't. Perhaps this is a sub-division thing- not total custom.

Bottom line- custom build? You get what you pay for. Good luck, and keep us posted.

As with any profession, there are great architects and poor architects. And there are also great designers and poor designers. I personally know architects I wouldn't trust to design a house for my dog (Here Miss Martha just got up, commenced with excessive tail wagging, put her front paws on my thighs and is trying to mightily to lick my face) "DOWN GIRL...DOWN!! No I'm not letting any of those people design your house!"

And back when I had a big firm (16 people with 6 architects) we had a guy who started out as the office boy as a senior in high school but 5 years later he was our lead designer. VERY creative. Over the years encouraged him to get a degree but no interest. Here he would be called a designer. And I would have trusted him to design my own house.....(and Miss Martha just barked in agreement when she saw I typed that!).

You wrote "While the designer did not show me any of his plans and I didn't even think to ask to see them, the architect did and they are SO detailed". I guess you're referring to the technical side of services which anybody can do given training while I'm talking about the CREATIVE side which requires more of an inborn ability, the reason why the simple ownership of a CAD program does not impart creative design talent.

In that regard a key test is to find out in his or her process is if they do any designing right in front to you with you at the table. I've always been a believer that the best designers are fast on their feet and if a person always has to go back to their shop to design, they're probably not that good. Depending on project complexity, we all do that to a certain degree but if it's 100% of the time, find somebody else.

@architectrunnerguy - Thank you for your input. You're right. That's the technical side. The designer does sit down and make changes right there with you in the room.

Do you really need moulding profiles? I would do this in conjunction with my builder. Do you need kitchen design? I would do this with my kitchen designer. Do you need elevations of the bathroom cabinetry? See how you can avoid some of the costs by realizing there are things that you can do for yourself.

I scratch my head a bit on this comment. For a very experienced homeowner, this approach might work. For most, however, this approach begs for "piecemeal", and the costs start to add up as you bring in more people to do specific things. Non-cohesive design can also happen here, especially if you don't have one person who is heading up the design, and carrying it through.

Elevations aren't something that are DIY, for the vast majority of people. Piecemeal the technical side and expect hold-ups at the permit level AND during build-out. That's not a cost savings, it's a time-and-cost suck. Also expect any design you agree on to get "tweaked", changed and perhaps leave you with something very different than you agreed upon. Builders will do this, within expediency.

We have many neighborhoods in our area that have a wide variety of home sizes and prices - from $600K to $2M - and I will bet that fewer than 10% are designed by an architect.

In our area, architect designed homes tend to be either 1) infill lots or 2) acreage. There's a certain homogeneity that happens in any large subdivision and that tends to drive residential designers and not architects.

It's good that you've seen some of the houses. Have you also talked to the owners? They may have very good information you can use to help choose.

It's important to separate out the underlying DESIGN of the house (flow of rooms, roofline, scale, wasted space) from the DESIGN of the interior (colors, furniture, flooring). Houses over 4000 square feet can end up as a series of long hallways or with dark interior rooms. I'd want to find someone who says "I don't do that, here's my solution". I can't say whether the designer or architect would give you a better design. I'd also plan to hire a specialist for kitchen/bath design and overall interior design if you need that.

You could also talk to the builders. Who do they prefer to work with?

For you it's also about figuring out what you are really looking for in a new home. Do you want a nice home or a special home? A lot of people don't want to spend the time required to truly customize a home. As an example are you going to research dozens of different window choices yourself, do you want the architect/designer to do that, or do you want the builder to pick something?