Shop Products
Houzz Logo Print
homestuff_gw

Designer v. Architect v. Builder

homestuff
10 years ago

Hello to all, new the forum. It's a great resource, I've been reading and searching for a while. I've already read some threads on this topic but I'd be grateful for your comments/advice.

We are looking to renovate/add to an older home (built a long, long time ago - 1800s). We actually hired an architect to do a design phase for us. We did enjoy working with him on the design phase which we have already paid for.

Now we're at the point we're needing to get thing drawn up and we are at a crossroads. We could have the architect do it ($$$), or get a home designer ($$), or get the builder to do the drawings himself ($). We really never considered a home designer. Frankly, didn't even know that that was an option (shame on me for not researching better).

The thing is the architect would cost about double of a home designer and a lot more than the builder. We're not sure whether to go with the home designer or the architect. Even at the high cost of the architect we're still not getting a lot of details in the plans. We just desperately want to make sure we get the layout and floor plan correct.

Any advice/comments/thought??

Comments (2)

  • renovator8
    10 years ago

    These 3 people have different roles in the delivery of a building. Although there is a lot of overlap they cannot provide the exact same services. Your choice should depend on the services you need or desire.

    In order to advise you I would need to know quite a bit more about you, your expectations, your budget, the project conditions, the current design and the experience and capabilities of the people you are considering.

    There are rarely simple answers in the design and construction of buildings.

  • dadereni
    10 years ago

    Welcome to the forum. Since you've been reading for a while you've seen the range of opinions, and the tough love.

    Renovating an older home, 1800s? How much investigation of the house did the architect do? Hopefully you and the architect know quite a bit about the house at this point and could share with us. I'm not sure how large of a project this is. Presumably there have been a number of alterations over the years to varying and uncertain quality. Possibly materials that would be hazardous if disturbed through demolition. Or was everything completely renovated in the last 30 years?

    If there's been some investigation, then you might want to keep your architect. Rather than get someone possibly less qualified to do the construction documents--someone different who will have to play catch up or may not even ask any questions or be aware of all of the existing conditions before putting pen to paper.

    If you're not going to get enough details with this architect and you have a very specific outcome in mind, then you might as well write the check to someone who will give you that. But keep in mind that while it's never to early to think about details, you might not see them in the drawings now, depending on where you are in design and the architect's scope of services. Have you seen examples of construction drawings produced by your architect?

    Anyway, if you're concerned about total cost, stay with an architect and reduce the number of unknowns before the builders bid. At the end of the project it might be architect ($$), home designer ($$$), design-builder ($$$). Builders bidding on the whole thing right now would be assuming a lot of risk, and would rightfully account for this in their bids. Going with one builder means no competitive bidding.

    If the architect doesn't have a good understanding of the existing conditions, then no one should be getting the "thing drawn up" and you might want to consider a different architect.