My fiance and I have been looking to buy our first home for almost a year now. We have been looking for an older home (pre 1930's), because we love the historical feel, especially victorian architecture. A lot of us have that same dream. When I was a teen, I was dating a guy that was in a fraternity that was out of a beautiful Victorian. I remember the stairway, the flowers that were engraved in the wood. I remember the "dome room" and while it was a PITA to put furniture in, amazed me every time I went into it. I remember beautiful moldings, everything was etched and 3 or 4 fireplaces. It had a decent sized kitchen from what I remember, also had a servant room. Man I loved that house and swore that one day, if I could afford to have the house moved I would. The house was located in one of the worst neighborhoods. You had to lock your doors to drive there and run in the house. I bet that in it's day, it was one of the grandest houses. They ended up knocking it down, don't know when but I drove by about 16 years ago, there was nothing on the lot. Anyway, a lot of us have the same dream, to own a beautiful, grand house. Reality is the lack of things needed to live in it in today's world as Tricia said. Since you are not married with kids yet, it wouldn't really matter much, you would probably get by fine. Once you have kids and they start getting older is when you will notice how hard it is to raise a family there unless you luck out and get a house that has larger rooms where you can make closets, or one that has a decent kitchen. I wonder then if my fiance and I should actually change our dream to accomodate the current economy and the deals available? IMO, this might be a good idea, at least for now. Being newly married can be stressful. Unless the 2 of you are currently living together, you have to learn to live with your partner. How do both of you handle stress? Buying a house that you are working on all of the time is very stressful and could eventually start pulling you apart. You'll come home from work some days so tired but you have to sand & throw another coat of spackle on, or paint, or run out to the home store to buy supplies. Hubby & I worked on our last house starting 2 years after I moved in. We removed paneling, faux brick, painted, put in floors as well as putting a new floor frame on a concrete slab in the laundry area to build it up so that we could put a floor down. By the time we sold we were tired & cranky. Add to this a roof, electric upgrade, plumbing, which was a job in itself since there was only 1 shutoff valve, which meant we lost water for the day. We also did central air, a hot water heater as well as new furnace, and had planned to redo all of the baseboards as well. Are there any houses that are in between the old house and new construction for a compromise? You might be able to live a little bit more comfortably and not have to work as hard. It will also give you an idea of how the 2 of you work together as a team (or not). You can save the Victorian house for later on

The ceilings look to be about 7 anyway, but you know how silly people have gotten about ceiling heights, now nine feet in new construction is barely adequate. But the problem might be in the stairways, as well. We looked at a house that high enough ceilings (10 or 11; 9; 8; I think), but if you were over 5'11'' you hit your head on the headers in the landings. It also had doors that were 22" wide between an outer wall and a chimney into some rooms, so no widening. The house had a lot of IKEA furniture upstairs because nothing else would be easy to get in.

Yes to your own RE attorney. Yes to a methodology of lien release tracking. Yes to setting up a construction draw schedule even if you don't have a loan. Your builder should know when he needs draws and design a schedule for you. Planning is everything. Know what you want and stick to it. Strangely enough, once the foundation is dug, a lot of risk diminishes. If there are no rocks or water, your foundation costs drop off. Shop around for other lenders. You only need a construction loan. Not a construction to perm. They are different. It's good to have a line of credit in your back pocket when building. I suggest you explore a home equity line of credit on your current home. If you need it, you have it. If you don't use it, you were prepared. Lenders will love you. They love to lend to people who don't need the money. And, they love lending to people who already own the land. Expect and prepare for cost overruns. Construction lending is high risk and you are lowest level of risk of a high risk endeavor. Make the lenders compete for your business.

@John Hrivnak, ArCH, AIA, MBA, NCARB, LEED AP - This is a problem with anecdotal evidence. You are not going to architect your way out of a bad builder. When we look at the advantages and disadvantages of design/build firms in aggregate it is pretty easy figure the trade-offs inherent in the model. This is not rocket surgery, it is a simple backward or forward vertical integration business combination and they have been happening a long time now. Somewhere deep in the past a wine maker said. "I think we would be more profitable if we grow the grapes." THE GOOD Every combination requires synergy, so the two parts being better together than they would be apart. In the case of the winery owning the grapes it is a change in the decisions around growing and harvesting grapes. Essentially you can tailor your wine to your grapes and your grapes to your wine. In design/build firms plans will be tailored to take advantage of builder proficiencies and enhanced communications. The designer will be able to anticipate areas where the builder may struggle and will design away from that when possible and communicate more clearly when not. Plans are more likely to hit cost targets as the design process is automatically designing to efficiency. There will also be more communication between the builder and designer during the design phase when they are in the same office. THE BAD Every combination has a sacrifice because of the exclusive nature of the combination. In the case of a winery, if you own the fields and have a grape harvest that is not particularly fantastic while a competing grower has a fantastic harvest, you are still required to use your grapes. If you sell your grapes and buy the others you have destroyed all of the value in the combination. In design/build firms that tailoring of plans to building efficiency will limit creativity. An architect for a design build firm is not going to design towards something the builder is not good at doing. They are going to design to strengths and away from weaknesses. Those strengths and weaknesses might not be shared by every builder. This is a tangible weakness and should be given serious consideration (e.g. If a builder has a preferred window supplier the designer is likely to find a way to incorporate those windows in the design even if a different window would be better). --- This entire thing assumes that quality is equal across the board, which it is not. I can assure you that the answer above is correct, yet it is also meaningless in your decision. Your decision is going to be based on your needs and your market. In your market you may well have several architect driven design/build firms (forward vertical integration), or you might have cost conscience builders providing design services (backward vertical integration). Do your due diligence and then pick the arrangement that you are most comfortable with. I would advise that you take pricing quotes with a grain of salt, the best value is not likely to depend on a quoted upfront price. Also I personally would not look at portability of plans from a design/build firm. This seems like the worst of all worlds... You limit design to strengths of one firm and then don't use that firm. Just my 2 cents... Good luck.