If you commission an architect, particularly for full services, they become your agent and are concerned only about your best interests throughout the project, or for the duration of their services.

If you contract with a design-build company or a general contractor who then provides an architect (or other design type), then the architect/designer/drafter, etc., is paid by and responsible to the design-build or general contractor, and will be concerned with their best interests.

Take your pick!

This is a good question with many different answers.

We used the independent architect, then searched for a builder to implement the design. In my opinion it's more expensive. We contracted with an estimator during the design phase for price feedback. During the build we had to make a couple of alterations on the fly.

It's possible that the design/build firm could be cheaper. You get immediate price feedback. There are fewer unknowns.

The drawback could be you lose some creativity. It's possible that the designer (or architect) and builder slip into a routine of what is easiest. That they go for the path of least resistance.

We are doing the landscaping now. I went with the equivalent of the design/build. I did interview independent landscape architects. But I just didn't want to go through all that again.

Design costs have come in at about 1/3 what the actual architects cost would have been. Plus he works for the firm and can be consulted for no extra charge.

Good luck.

Many, if not mist, builders employ draftsmen, not architects. A draftsman's job is to take dictation from the builder, usually with the ease of building, and maximizing profit, as the first criteria in their brief. You get some cost controls, maybe. But at the expense of creativity, and definitely at the expense of accountability. The draftsman is accountable to the contractor, not to you.

Who employs the creative person is who controls the project. If an 60-80% good enough house is fine, then use the in house, with close attention paid during the design phase. If a 95% good enough, and more control over the details is what you aim for, then an independent real architect, with a builder as a paid cost and reality consultant during the design phase, is what you need to be considering.

We have several design build firms locally that are owned BY architects - and they became builders to ensure their vision was executed properly...

Frankly, I'm tired of the "independent architect having your best interests at heart" at the exclusion of other options. Our company is a 34-year old design/build firm that employs a registered architect on full time staff (for the past 16 years and counting.) It is not in our long-term best interest to trade the brand equity we've earned for a couple of margin points on any home. Nor do we want to dish up an unimaginative, draftsman-like plan (we have a number of national awards to our credit.) Quality of design is a differentiating competency for us in our local market--and we do it for a lot lower cost than independent architects.

The business model for many residential architects is to create and profit from the client's fears of a builder. This discounts problems with actually constructing the independent architect's designs (spoiler alert: the builder is always at fault.)

Clients will be well-served to choose a firm that has a long-standing history of quality designs, well-built homes, and satisfied customers. You might even find a design-build firm where the principals are architects!

Thank you all. You've made some very good points. I was concerned yesterday when I didn't get any response. Now I am very relieved, as you have given me a much better idea of "next steps" for my research. A neighbor came to the door today to ask us to sign agreement for a variance on his home remodel. I'm glad to be starting "early" and having such a great group providing feedback. Thanks again.

We've had a relatively good experience with our builder who modified a home he built previously through his normal architect. All in all our home will be beautiful and the construction is sound. With that said if I had to do it over again we'd go architect first and then bid a spec'd set of plans. The reason why is we find ourselves wanting to add things we didn't know we wanted and the price tags are inflated. I feel like if they were included in the original spec they'd have a better price tag.

To cpartists point if I had an architect instead of a builder, I'd have a 6/12 pitch on my back roof like the rest of the house instead of a 3/12 because the rooflines would have been planned out better. I wouldn't have been hit with a 2500 electrical overage because the outlets and switches would have been built into the plans. I would have had undercabinet lighting and outlets. I wouldn't have had to switch backsplashes because labor wasn't calculated for mosaic sheets.

Or or maybe none of those things would have been different.

Either way enjoy your journey. It's a fun ride. And what you have tomorrow will be better than what you had yesterday.

I am an independant architect . . . guess which way I would recommend.

Admittedly both methods have their benefits. Your decision should weigh heavily on how well you feel the architect can capture your vision of the home you wish to build, something that is uniquely yours.

If you do choose to go the design/build route, perhaps you could request to pay the architect directly for his/her work.

@Charles Ross Homes - you are clearly passionate about what you do. And a good builder can appreciate good architecture. I find that given the opportunity to do something "different" or more custom, the good ones rise to the challenge and learn from it.

A lot of builders tend to continue to "do what they know" - which is easy and the most efficient / profitable for them. The ones that don't - get set apart and are every bit as valuable as an architect.

Good architecture on paper - that can't be built - is a sad thing. Kudos to those who make it happen in the field.

Good architecture, on paper, from a great architect can and does get built- all the time. I just did it. Finding a builder first and letting him "throw in" an architect is weird. Finding a build/design firm can work, but be prepared to be left out of a lot of process.

I'm a producer/media professional. I also write, for a living. My husband owns an advertising firm. When I first started our ground-up custom build, I was working first with builders. After a few frustrating rounds of builders, my husband advised:

Why would you ever hire a crew before you had the script?

Double track thinking- you need both an architect-designed plan that fits your budget AND a builder who can do it.

A different perspective...

Design build firms are just a version of vertical integration, which means it is just a merger between two steps in the supply chain. Every arrangement like this must have synergy, meaning that both the architect and the builder saw some advantage to the relationship.

The obvious synergies are consolidated overhead costs, but that isn't typically enough. There are things like unity of vision, reduced transactional friction and familiarity with competencies.

To put this into plain(ish) English, a design build firm is more likely to stay on the same page, there will be less trouble with miscommunication and the architect is very likely to know the areas of his plan that the builder will struggle with and can point those things out, there is also a symbiotic relationship that allows the architect to learn from the builder while the builder learns from the architect.

I am also convinced that the nature of design build firms probably leads to more feasible projects. You are somewhat less likely to have your dream plan only to discover it is double the budget.

However, all of these advantages come at a cost. There is little doubt that the nature of the relationship stifles creativity. Familiarity with the builder's abilities has to create a preference towards those abilities. In fact, there is a vested financial interest in doing things they are good at doing and a financial reason not to do the things that they might struggle with.

I doubt very seriously a design build firm is capable of thinking in the same creative manner as an independent architect. It just doesn't make sense. Also when there is a problem with the build, and there will be, who will the architect advocate for?

For many people they are a better choice. Yet for others, they are the inferior choice.

Just my 2¢...

ETA: Please understand we are all talking in the abstract. A discussion on the advantages and disadvantages of architect vs. design build firm work right up until you pick an architect or a design build firm and then all bets are off. At that point it becomes about the ability of the person you chose.

I know an architect that use to work for a design/build firm. He found he was being forced to have his designs driven by the dollar and by creativity. It is a fine line to walk.

@Mark Bischak, I know what you mean. The last architect-designed home we competitively bid on wasn't constrained at all. Our bid was the low bid at $1.4MM which was twice the owners' budget. The home didn't get built, the architect got awarded their design fee (following arbitration) and a lot of energy (on the part of the potential builders) and money (on the part of the client) was wasted in the process. So much for constraints....

Isn't Lake Flato doing design/build now?

They certainly don't seem like a firm that is constrained by dollars.

My architect did not shy away from a challenge or a new building technique. He was the owner, along with his wife. The companies were run by the architects. Other design build firms here in my area are primarily architecture firms.

Perhaps others have had experienced with firms that were primarily build firms that hired an architect, which I could see would lead to certain constraints. I thought that most of the firms regarded as "design / build" were architects who build vs builders who have architectural services.

No, that's not what I mean. Whether it is an architect or a design build firm, there is a responsibility to watch the budget and provide quality architectural design. There are failures and successes with both methods. You had an experience where the architect did not watch the budget. Many design/build firms and similar entities fall short in their design capabilities and creativity, and the same could be said with some architects; but the bottom line is delivering the product and/or services the client desires and can afford.

Some people know what they want and can pay for it. I could be wrong, but a vast majority of those people use an independant architect.

Hello

As an Architect I could tell you that some times the General Contractor has own interest in his architect for may reasons. Sometimes the GC feel comfortable because they know each other. Sometimes it is about internal fees.

Otherwise, from my own experience the Architect has its own license and has to be independent and confidence with his client. The most effective it is take a interview with the architect proposed and another one that you will check yourself and take your own conclusion.

The architect's works has to be as much comfortable with you as possible. The architect has to design for you and has to know your needs and goals, so trust in whatever but by your feelings.

Good luck!

As I wrote at the top of the thread, when all of the personalities are set aside, it's all about the contractural relationship and the terms of the contract.

A contract with an architect is for professional services, as defined in the agreement for services. Generally, the architect is the owner's agent and concerned with the owner's interests only, unless there is specific written exception.

Depending on the agreement used, an implied or defined standard of care is part of the agreement.

A contract with a design-build firm or a general contractor is for construction of a product provided by the design-build or general contractor firm, as described in the contract for construction. This is the case, even with design-build or general contractors who provide a "design" service through an employee or paid consultant (of the design-build or general contractor).

Such contracts are not a professional services agreement, but rather a vendor contract.

These contracts typically may be in one of four categories (although there can be many variations): 1) Lump sum or fixed price; 2) Cost plus coverage of the contractor's overhead an profit; 3) Time and materials, and; 4) Unit prices.

In such relationships, the design-build or general contractor always put their own, individual business interests first. In these circumstances, the owner is responsible for their own interests, from start to finish. They have no agent or other party which looks after their interests.

Pick the relationship and contractural terms/interests which best fit your situation, abilities and knowledge.

The above was not my experience. We signed an AIA contract and then had we built with the architects build firm, we would have signed a separate contract. We did not sign or commit to the entire design build process on the front end.

Jannicone, yours was an unusual (but good) experience, IMO! Having two separate contracts (one for architectural services and one for construction) is probably the best of both worlds. Unfortunately, many design-build firms do not operate in this fashion, and only use a single construction contract, which includes "design" services by someone or other.

Janni, that's a cool way to do it! I wish it was the norm in my area; I'd have more options!!!

Around here, most builders have in-house "designers" or premade plans; I can think of exactly *one* design-build firm where one brother is an architect and one is a contractor, and they do beautiful work. You pay for architectural services independently/first, and are under no obligation to use them for the building of the house. I don't think they will release the plan to you, if you don't go with them, but I totally understand that reasoning.

Yeah - I just assume (incorrectly!) that Design - Build is an architect thing, not a builder thing. Both architects I have engaged with in my past experience were architects first, builders second, and had separate contracts and fees, and actually businesses for each. To be fair, I started out looking for architects that I liked, so I would not have found the "other" firms, I don't think.

Bottom line is that you must be comfortable with both the builder and architect. They both must clearly understand your goals, budget and schedule. We are often requested to provide architect references which we are glad to do. Depending on the Client, the goals and the desired architecture we arrange 2-3 firms to be interviewed by our Clients. My advice is to choose your builder first. Use him or her as a resource to assist with identifying the potential architects. Based on your builder's input and your evaluations; you select the architect that best suits you and your project. Any of the firms that your builder recommends should be of quality and with outstanding references so it just boils down to compatibility.

Pay attention to how the designing consultants are contracted; architect, civil and structural engineers, landscape architect ect... You may contract directly with each and pay direct. If the GC contracts the designing consultants make sure that are not marking up the consultants fees.

The structural engineer needs attention just as much as the architect. They can impact the budget very quickly if thoughtful consideration and close coordination with the builder is lacking. The builder and engineer should review and discuss the structural design concepts prior to finalizing the drawings. The use of PSL's, LVL's, Strongwalls, Steel, roof and floor trusses ect... should all be discussed and generally priced for quality and efficiency.

If the builder and engineer fail to coordinate the design, what you might end up with is a set of drawings that the builder will value engineers (VE) to create savings on the structure, He (the builder comes to you and says, if we change the floor joist from LVL's to open truss-joist we can save $12K on the framing. Or, I think we can replace the steel moment frames with CTF Smart-Walls and save $18K.) You say great and inform the structural engineer of the desired changes and he say's OK, I'll run the calculations and make the changes on the drawings.

You just saved tens of thousands of dollars on the framing costs but now you need to pay the engineer half of that for making changes... If they, builder / engineer work together before the design is finalized you'll receive the full benefit of their expertise. (And yes, the builder is much more qualified as they are on the front lines of innovation, efficiencies and intelligent products that save time and money and improve the product. Think of the engineer as a slide ruler...

Good Luck

Pick your architect first and let him/her recommend builders. Then bring the builder in as you design the house.

I picked my architect, who isn't local, first. Since he isn't local and didn't know any builders... I then interviewed a few and passed the good ones on to my architect for him to interview. So far it has been good, though we aren't building yet.