We met with several as well for our two-story addition (see my post below for the first week's updates and the plans and everything). We went with a builder who did his own plans, but has left all decisions up to us. I'm too much of a detail-oriented control freak to only want options A and B (to use the example above) but I don't know enough to GC it myself. So our GC handles all of the big things, and we had a big hand in the design and we're selecting everything that goes inside - all bathroom fixtures, tile, paint, carpet, light fixtures, etc. Please page me with any questions, since I'm living through the construction now!

Live wire - thanks for the overview, that helps a lot. Our budget is limited and I am okay with some involvement. We are not 80-hour-work-week type of people who just want to hand the project off.

rlthomas - thanks for the support! I checked out your post below - looks exciting, can't wait to see the finished product!

"We are not 80-hour-work-week type of people who just want to hand the project off."

Good. Row your own boat.

I give this advice to all of my clients, this your house, you pay the bills and when the dust clears, you're still paying the mortgage so why would you allow yourself to be subordinate to someone else's whim and fancy.

We went design/build because there is a particular firm that did dozens of houses in our development and has an excellent reputation. He already knows the structure, so fewer surprises all around. However, the architect from this firm has been unimpressive. She would be fine if we were just adding a box room. But somehow I was expecting her to propose "architecture" -- something shapely and creative. Many of the ideas have been my own, which is okay in the end. Then she went crazy with the roof but that's better now. On the other hand, the upfront design fee was very very reasonable. We will get good plans, but the plans belong to the firm, so we cannot shop them around for a lower build price. But that's ok too, I don't want to be tempted away from the reliable foreman by a false price.

lyvia, it's funny you mention that about the architect, as we had a similar experience when we were looking for an architect to work on our renovation project. I was completely shocked how devoid of original ideas they were and how much they wanted to charge for those unoriginal ideas. We ended up going with a "designer" who had previously drawn up plans for a local lumber company. He's not a licensed architect, but basically does the same things. For our small project it was just what we needed, especially when it became clear that any interesting ideas were probably going to come from us. He charged us $700 total, which included about four face to face meetings and several rounds of changes. One architect we interviewed wanted $11,000.

As for the rest of the project, we are taking a similar approach to that of rlthomas. I'm way too involved in the outcome of this renovation to have someone else picking out my bathroom lights.

We went with a design/build company for our addition. We were budget conscience and were concerned that an architect would draw plans that were unrealistic with our budget. It's nice to have the architect work hand in hand with the contractor. Less problems. However, we have made every decision regarding the finishes. Ex. I choose all the bathroom finishes, decided what kind of siding we wanted etc.

I've included a link to my blog and at the beginning I talk about meeting with various companies.

Here is a link that might be useful: My Blog

Has one of the outfits impressed you more than the others? IMHO, it's who you communicate well with, who's vision matches yours, who's willing to work with your budget, how much effort you want to put in and how talented you are with design and making decisions.

There's an interesting circumstance when choosing between and getting bids from both design/build firms and architects/GCs. You'd usually want as detailed a plan as possible when bidding a remodel, so you get bids that have less guess-work in them, allowing you to better compare apples to apples. But when you throw a design/build firm into the mix, you've already done part of their work: the design. Maybe another gardenweb/remodling user can comment on this aspect of the situation.

For what it's worth, here's an article I wrote on choosing a contractor that might give you more info:
http://www.homeduover.com/Articles/Choosing-a-Contractor/19

bill g web also brings up a good point regarding communication. I have been thrilled with my GC's communication. He calls me at the end of every week to let me know what's on the schedule for the upcoming week so that I can be prepared - like making sure the laundry isn't all over the place so that the plumber can have space to work in the basement or making sure the back door is unlocked or locked on days they will/will not be there. Such communication sounds simple, but I can't tell you how many times I've been frustrated with much smaller projects when people don't show up or are late.

Honestly, the communication situation was a huge selling point for me. Some friends have used this company in the past and said that the GC was a great communicator. While I got other quotes, of course, but I was willing to pay a little more, if necessary, to have the peace of mind of a good communicator for a job this big.

I don't know what the rules are in your state for someone to call himself an Architect. Here in California, the state maintains a board that lists licensed Architects and in order to be listed you must have a degree from an state accredited college, serve a four year apprenticship, and pass a state exam. If you don't do this, it is illegal to call yourself an Architect. It's like a nurse's aid claiming to be a doctor or someone practicing law without a degree and claiming to be a lawyer or someone claiming they are a policeman without actually being one. Most of the people who design remodels, in my city, aren't even accredited draftsmen. They have learned the minimum requirements to get past the city planning department and their ignorance is on display throughout the city. If you ask them to remodel your house and you want it done in the Santa Barbara style they won't know what you're talking about. If you ask them what makes a home a ranch style home, they have no idea. As far as making a house energy efficent, they haven't the slightest clue of how to do that. Even builders of tract homes usually don't have an Architect on staff. At best, they hire an Architect to design three or four houses, which they build with slight variations. That's why, most of the additions around here, at best, look like someone dropped a box on top of the house. A real Architect also knows how to design the inside of the house, like the placement and size of the spaces, windows, materials and ect. so you get the maximum function out of your new addition. There are some draftsmen that can design a nice update, but you need to see examples of their work and make sure it's not their limitations that dictate your design, inside and out. I am not an Architect. I'm just sick and tired of these guys, with a fifth grade education, calling themselves Architects, and poluting cities with their shabby updates. I have even seen occasions where people stand around and laugh.

Using an architect as a consultant to design and draw construction documents as well as administrate the contract puts the owner in the driver's seat. Using a design-build firm puts the contractor in the driver's seat. Which is best depends primarily on the people available in your area and to what degree the owner wants control over the project.

The traditional advantage of the design-build approach is that it is cheaper and I can think of no other reason for using it unless there are no qualified architects available or local builders are not accustomed to bidding and building from full construction documents.

As an architect, I have only once worked for a contractor and I will not do it again because I was unable to resolve the inevitable conflict of interest. Expecting a contractor to put an owner's interests above his own is not realistic and I believe an architect's duty should always be to the owner.

Hiring an Architect is just like hiring a lawyer - you get the outcome you pay for. Working with a design builder has some advantages. As someone stated above you essentially get turn-key experience, if that's what you want. But make no mistake you will still pay design fees the same as an Architect, they will just be buried in the overhead column, the stated design fee is usually just to sell you over using an Architect. I see builders quoting ridiculously low design fees of $2,000 for 3,000SF home. Think about that, do you really expect an Architect to assume lifelong liability for your home's design for $10 an hour? Furthermore design builders pocket most of the design fee so your usually getting lower quality architects or the builder's wife, who has amazing taste. The fact is when you go to the store and buy home design magazines ,go online and look at home design websites or even the magazines on your builder's waiting room table, the featured projects are always done by QUALITY Architects who know their market and perform extraordinarily. Thats why we are always being copied by design builders....Heres a good test; see what car the Architect roles up in versus the builder and then decide who has your interest at heart.

M.Olson, you do realize you dug up a 5 year old post......

...And you responded

tl;dr: design/build firms should generally be cheaper on the whole but not as flexible.

Now for more words:

Not sure I like your attorney metaphor. The best paid attorneys don't necessarily win more, on the whole, they probably lose many more cases than modestly paid attorneys. The most expensive attorneys are not the guys who give you the outcome you want, they are the guys who give slivers of hope in desperate situations. Plus attorneys generate value from cost savings, while architects generate value from added value.

Design/build firms are an example of either backward vertical integration or forward vertical integration - Depending on contractor led vs. architect led. In general, there will be additional savings to a design/build firm. Because that is what vertical integration does, it creates savings through efficiency. In the case of design/build firms they lower overhead, increase communication, reduce frictions, take advantage of specializations, etc.

So it is entirely possible that a $2,000 design fee for a 3,000 square foot house is actually the additional charge. It is really not that hard to imagine that an architect and builder who work beside each other all the time, might allow the builder to reduce contingencies in their budget. For example, assuming the contractor bids out a 20% profit but experience has taught him that miscommunication will reduce that profit to 15%. Using an employee as architect however allows him to get the profit back up to 18%. He can then charge less for the design fees, encouraging clients to use his services while maintaining profitability.

However, these savings come at a cost. The idea behind design/build firms is synergy through efficiency. However, when customers' wants are contrary to the efficiency of the firm, then design/build firms will cost more. Simply put, the architect in the firm is going to design structures that the firm is good at building, he should resist things that they are not good at building. If pushed into designing a structure, procedure, material, etc., that the firm has no experience with the client loses the ability to shop the design to firms who are experienced in it, and are forced to stick with an inexperienced builder.

OT - bry911, the most highly compensated attorneys in the US typically are in corporate/finance/transactions and often don't see the inside of a courtroom unless they get a jury duty summons ;-)

OT response... Corporate lawyers are the exact people I was talking about who give slivers of hope in dire situations. But...

The best paid attorneys are those that represent plaintiffs and defendants in tort cases. On the corporate side these are the guys who attempt to stretch losing cases out to a geological timeline. While those representing plaintiffs try to get money for David from Goliath.

While tax attorneys, capital criminal defense and environmental all deserve an honorable mention, nothing even compares to tort attorneys, the top attorneys who handle tort cases make an order of magnitude more than any other attorneys. The top two tort earners have made much more money than the top 100 of any other type.

Banking and finance attorneys are not incredibly well paid. Mostly because the transactions are so regulated that there is little room for creativity, and there are so many banks that there is an abundance of talent. But they are often lumped in with other corporate lawyers (mostly those tort guys) which makes them look well paid.

OT-but those tort guys typically aren't "paid" by a client, they're "awarded" fees from a settlement or judgment fund subject to court approval.

Not on the corporate side. Capital and serious crime defense, tax and environmental are among the other top earners and they all do it by attempting to stave off the inevitable. The only type of lawyer that is high paid in any type of contract or finance environment are entertainment.

Edit: The larger issue is that attorneys and architects may both make money off of their brains, but they really don't generate value the same way. Use painter, landscaper, engineer, author, etc., just not attorney.

Going through the same thing. Trying to figure out if we go design-build vs. Architect. Anyone with experience know what type of margin the design-build firm is backing into? Am I going to pay 20% more vs. using an architect who will likely draw up the plan, be around to help with bids and get all the approvals done?

In the process now and went with an architect rather than design and build. I considered design/build but they said my project wasn't big enough (kitchen/bathroom).

I started my project off with a design/build and switched to an architect and contractor. The design/build price for the design was reasonable-about the same as the architect; however, their quote for the build was outrageous.

Rockybird - good perspective. What happened with the design plans? Did you end up getting to keep those? Some places don't let you if you don't use their build dept.

A design-build contract should consist of 2 separate contracts so the owner could choose to not go forward if the construction price turned out to be too high. The owner would then have the right to use and/or modify the design drawings for one project.

Thanks, that is great info to have!

There were two separate contracts with the design build team. I only signed one for the design. I think I had them modify the design contract not to include final construction plans. We did not move forward to the construction plans as I opted not to go forward with them. All I got from them was a few 8x11 sheets of papers with sketches for the design plan, most of which were my idea as to changes I wanted to implement in the house. The quote for the build phase was very expensive.

The architect has a design phase and a construction drawing phase. I am paying as we go along. I have changed course with the project from what I initially wanted to do with the design build team. I started off wanting to do a master bathroom remodel, but have decided to do a master bedroom/bathroom addition. The architect has produced large architectural drawings for every change in the design phase. We are now in the construction phase of the drawings. I took the design plans to a contractor who gave me a ball park estimate. Since it was in my budget (and I know the ctr. cannot give me a true estimate without seeing the final plans), I had the architect move forward with the contsruction plans. That is where the project is now. So far, I am much happier with the architect/ contractor route.

Thanks for the detailed write up. I'm kicking around the idea between the design build route vs architect contractor process. Part of it is that I need ideas on how to layout the place. I've got ideas but just need to put to paper. Was your architect good with coming up with ideas and what works and what doesn't?

An architect who wasn't "good with coming up with ideas and what works and what doesn't" wouldn't be in business for long although some welcome more direct input than others. An architect spends most of his/her time solving problems but you can't know that if all you see is the drawings. If you want to get the most from your architect have a sit down meeting with lots of colored pens and tracing paper and kick the issues around until a good solution is found.