Are you certain the builder said MDF. There are composite materials available that look like wood but will not rot, usually just as expensive as wood.

Personally, I believe strongly in using the original types of materials that were traditionally used unless there is some very strong reason for not doing so. Not to waste your money but with a build at that level what's $4,000. Nothing like the real thing.

You can use MDF trims for painting inside the house, but I would not use it outdoors.

Well...your architect's role is to design your house, for your approval.

Your builder's role is to build what was designed for a cost you approve.

Encourage each to stick to their role.

I replace lots of wood with man made materials where the wood is degraded, cupped, twisted etc.

All materials require proper installation and maintenance, but where I am, the man made products win. They hold paint better, come in clear long lengths, and last longer.

For reference, yesterday low 16, high 34. Today bright sun, high 60. Snow in winter, wind and rain in summer.

Yeah - I don't think he's suggesting MDF, more likely a PVC type product that is super stable, won't rot (and yes, I know cedar won't) and will stay true a heck of a lot longer than wood. Do as suggested and buy pieces, paint them - hold them up against the house and see if it matters.

As PPF stated, though, the PVC product will likely be the same cost as wood. (And that's what I would use)

@Virgil,

Your suggestion to have the builder and architect stick to their individual roles is, well, pretty old school advice, professor.

A professional collaboration beginning in the design phase takes advantage of the builder's real-world experience with various materials and construction techniques. The builder's knowledge of current costs--and it's not a trivial task to keep up with those--is particularly useful to inform the design if there is a budget--and there is always a budget.

Alternatively, you could keep the builder out of the process until the last minute, then get an unpleasant surprise when it comes to cost and/or feasibility. That might serve an architect's interest if it results in additional design fees, but I find it's often that the client abandons the project and is left with a hole in their wallet and a bad taste in their mouth. Those who don't abandon the project altogether typically resort to extreme redesign and value engineering. Some will cut the architect out of the redesign effort and let the builder perform major "surgery" on the plan. The end product often bears little resemblance to the original.

The old school design-bid-redesign-re-bid, etc. process is being replaced with a more collaborative, faster track, and lower cost collaborative design/build process. Even AIA is promoting it. They describe a variety of options under the umbrella of "Integrated Project Delivery." You can get the information on line, it's a good read, and in my experience, a good process.

Charles, you misunderstood my comments. And perhaps I was not clear. Let me try again.

First of all, I am all in favor of the early collaboraction of client, architect and general contractor, plus whomever else makes sense, depending on project scope. I agree with all of the reasoning for this which you described.

Secondly, I was addressing the all too common approach by far too many builders to owners during the construction phase which typically goes like this:

--"Do you really want to do this? I always do it this way and I've never had any complaints..."

--"If we just change this to that, I can save you a bunch of time and money..."

I'm sure you will agree that if/when such situations should ever arrive, there should be at least a three way meeting of client, architect and builder.

We currently have exactly this situation in the "subfloor" thread.

"I'm sure you will agree that if/when such situations should ever arrive, there should be at least a three way meeting of client, architect and builder."

Absolutely, we currently have this situation where the GC has made some suggestions, we listen to their reasoning and if we find it to be compelling we then discuss this with the Architect to get his thoughts on this. Now we have two perspectives and then we decide which of the two we prefer.

It's fairly straight forward unless someone in the mix digs in their heels and takes things too personally.

I see no point in using real wood that needs apinting often BTW especailly yhe cedar when you can save money and get an easier product for upkeep if both look very much the same when painted I agree it will not be MDF but yea another man made product that will paint up better

Whatever you do, don't use a product with a fake texture. That is always obviously fake. Real finish wood trim has no texture that would show through a coat of paint (except possibly oak and ash, but they aren't used for painted trim because of that).

Another consideration - where I am in the PNW, exterior materials are chosen with an eye to fire resistance. Man-made materials like Hardi Plank are a better choice in a zone with a wildfire risk. I would ask the both the architect and builder about this if building just about anywhere out west these days.

As for the process, our builder has suggested a couple of changes. In each case he or we call the architect, who looks at options, does a mock-up, etc., and gets back to us with a thumbs up or an alternate suggestion. I don't think the architects have ever said a flat-out no to the builder's concerns, but sometimes they have proposed a different way to address them.

Go see example homes in person. Mock ups are a good option. Hard to duplicate the look & feel of real Cedar on the exterior, of Alder interior trim.... but it may not be the look you want.

A discussion about alternative materials of construction is best had in the design phase. That helps minimize potential delays, potential redesign, and potential change orders during construction.

As for PVC costing the same as wood. No way-- unless perhaps you're comparing it to the price of furniture-grade lumber. If the cost of PVC trim materials were on par with wood, it would be used a lot more than it is. The big box stores carry some cellular PVC products so you can compare pricing of PVC versus some wood counterparts.