Interesting point of view. I never really looked at his drawings as twisted perceptions. Instead, I always saw his depth of understanding geometry, especially tessellations. His IQ regarding spacial thinking, had to be extreme. Perhaps not fair to Mathematicians, Escher said: "By their very nature, they are more interested in which the way the gate is opened than the garden lying behind it." I think Escher and Beever must be artistic soul mates. ~di Here is a link that might be useful: One of Beever's sidewalk drawings.

What this discussion is really about is not drawing by hand or using a computer, it's really about what work is being done, what sort of "service" a client is getting and, most importantly, what the final result or outcome will be. Builders and designers may often work based on existing designs that they have built and are already fully resolved and stored in the computer. When a new client comes along, one of the existing computer files is called up and "reheated" or tweaked to meet the new client's wish list. When clients go to a builder/designer who charges $1/SF for services, this may be what is happening. Plus the builder/designer simply transfers any additional costs to the construction budget, where the client never sees them. For many consumers, this approach fits them perfectly. They don't want a custom designed home. All they want is an existing home that's tweaked to include their list of features. Think about what's going on: could any adult make a living, pay business expenses and reinvest in growing their business on $1/SF (or less)? How many 3,000 SF houses would such a builder need to do for annual income sufficient to stay in business and make a living for his family? That's why construction costs, and extra costs due to low allowances, provide most of the needed business income for builders and in-house designers. In this business model, the minimal "design" fees are simply a way to get people to sign a construction contract. In other words, what's being done may by cooking a previously existing floor plan until "complete", with little or no corresponding thought or work on site planning, climate and green design, and almost no thought to exterior massing and design. When the floor plan is sufficiently baked, the rest of the project is like icing a new cake. The exterior decoration is simply applied and handed to the client. This sort of incomplete thinking about design is why we see so many postings here on this forum of "fat" house plans, and corresponding ill-proportioned, roof-heavy exteriors, with a pretty "street face" and vanilla sides and backs. It's why so many designs are a miss-mash of stacked gable roofs and patch-work quilt wall materials--all decoration and no substance! All of the effort went into tweaking a plan and little or no corresponding work took place elsewhere. Architects work differently. They organize their work and fees by phases, working from very open-ended studies and explorations for a custom design, to a highly detailed set of drawings and specifications for bidding and construction. These phases of work are clearly defined and derived from a historical understanding of how building design proceeds in a step by step process, from initial ideas to final details, where insides, outsides, site, codes, energy, etc., are all considered together throughout the design process. The five typical phases for designing a project are: schematic design, design development, construction drawings and specifications, bidding and construction. One phase does not begin until the client has approved the work from the prior phase. These phases are why many architects may start a project using pencil, pen and tracing paper as they meet and discuss ideas, explore site opportunities, develop energy and green strategies, finally pulling everything together in a holistic schematic design. Thereafter, with the design direction identified, a computer may be used effectively to refine and add greater precision and detail, until the work is complete. It's not impossible to use computers for schematic design, but it is more difficult to sit in a meeting with clients, talk about needs and opportunities while punching information into a computer. It's a lot more effective to sit with clients and "doodle" with pencil and paper where everyone can see what their ideas may actually look like. The costs for this type of work is usually set by the architect as either a fixed fee (with conditions on what the fixed fee covers so that the work doesn't ramble on endlessly) or a percentage of the construction cost, or some combination, depending on circumstances. The important point for consumers to understand is that architect's fees are based on the quality and amount of original work by an architect, while SF costs may be based on minimal changes to an existing project, with possible hidden costs rolled into the construction budget. The issue is really not about how the work is performed--by hand or computer--it's really about what work is performed (or not performed) for a client, and what will be the end result: something custom and original or something reheated. Sorry about the long message, but it's important to point out that there's nothing wrong with either custom or reheated designs as long as the consumer understands what they are getting for what they are paying.

[warning: this is a stream of consciousness piece I don't have time to rework. Be patient here.] Do you anticipate entering the house from the garage most of the time? Your drawing seems to imply that the route to kitchen from front door is to go through the dining room and great room. I grew up in a house that had a route like that. The front door was only for guests; it was rare for us to use it. Dad had shortened up a houseplan that should have had 4 more feet side to side and an internal shortcut from front to back door. Entering from the back door in the kitchen, we walked the entire perimeter of the first floor in order to go upstairs. You have a "living" room, a "great" room, a "dining" area/room and a "family" room, all adjacent to one another. Do you really have a clear idea of the different activities that will take place in each of these spaces? Will the living room become a formal parlor that is essentially unused? Your kitchen has surprisingly little counterspace and as you said, only one sink, yet there is such a big first floor. Imagine your daughter as a grownup. Where will two women work and enjoy the parallel activities of two cooks? Throw DH into the kitchen also...where will you all be? Believe me, the dynamic between two women in a kitchen is different than that of a mom and a middle schooler. I'd push that island seating out toward the "family" room area--this is assuming that people looking out to the left in the diagram will have a clear view from some good seats there. But it's also important to note that people sitting at the island are there for kitchen reasons, not scenic ones--you have two more rooms which are closer to the windows--bird feeder watching? contemplation? etc. If I have misunderstood and the view is at the top of the picture or the top left, I'd turn the kitchen 90 degrees and put the backs of the island toward the great room. That gives more space back to the family room for a proper viewing area out there and the cook gets to look through both adjacent rooms at the views. Consider carts or a second small island as places for all the kitchen paraphernalia that sits on countertops. Better still, given the amount of space you have, there have been some intriguing two parallel island designs on the GW and in mags, etc. Here's a radical new idea: put the pantry and kitchen closet between the living room and the kitchen, a set of two hall-like spaces entered from the middle of the kitchen where you have the range currently and perhaps also with an access facing the door to garage. Move that kitchen wall six feet or so toward the family room, pushing the kitchen back toward the family room. The pillars there can be part of the semi-wall defining each side of kitchen. This puts people much closer to the fireplace when they are in the kitchen and makes the "family room" concept of kitchen and leisure activities more logical. Also, this puts the kitchen closer to...

I'm back! (I'm West Coast so now that the kids are in bed and the kitchen is cleaned up I can focus on my stuff!) Wow, that's quite a story. We have picked our contractor, but haven't started yet. DH will finish digging out for the masterbath addition foundation tomorrow morning. I sure hope our contractor isn't like yours! How horrible. Your kids are gorgeous! Those boys could almost be twins. My kids are about to turn 5 and 1. I'm not sure I could have been as strong as you to get through what you did. I'm glad you're seeing progress now! And what a beautiful kitchen you'll have when it's all said and done. I'm certainly no layout expert, but I agree with Buehl that the DW should be moved to the other side of the sink. That will truly keep the cleanup zone separated. My DW is on the left of the sink and I've gotten used to it. I'm right-handed so I can keep my srubby-thingy in my right hand while I load the scrubbed dish with my left. I didn't know it was "wrong" until I found this forum. That said, I went into this plan trying to put it back to the right of the sink. I also know that if it was ME, I would definetly put a prep sink on the island where you plan to prep. I know I have some hand cleanliness issues, but I have my hands in the sink about 87 times during a normal meal prep and I'd hate to move across an aisle to get to a water source. For me, it would result in many, many unnecessary steps and in water on the floor as Buehl mentioned. Your island is how big? 4'x7'? (You show five barstools on your plan, but you can only really get three there. You need 24" or more of width per bar stool.) A useful prep sink would be 18" wide. That still leaves you with 5.5' of open space. I think that's still a huge, wide open space considering that the island is 4' deep. My planned island is 4'x11.5' so I've thought a lot about how an island that deep results in lots of extra space for prepping or other activities. Bottom line, a sink won't take up that much room, but gives you so much added benefit. What is your aisle width between island and sink, and island and range? Rhome has a point about the angle of the drawing possibly skewing the view. She's got a good eye. Can't wait to hear about your progress! (Sleep tight with those sweet children!)