Hire the architect first and get a good one. It is his/her job to guide you through the process.

Can you provide some details on the property you own? Is it raw land out in boonies or a subdivision with other homes that have been built nearby? Is there a well on it - or does that have to be dug? Has the land been perked yet for septic or will it be public sewer? How far back will the house be from the main road - where can you tap in for electricity, phone? Is it rocky terrain - a mountain property? How much clearing has to be done?

Before your start spending money on the house design - you may want to find our how buildable your lot is first. If it is a subdivision and there are public utilities - then that probably won't be an issue. But if it is raw land, there are some risks that you should understand (and get cost estimates for) before you start with the house design.

After understanding the buildability of the site with credible estimates for site development costs (maybe from excavators or consultants who specialize in land development) - then you might start looking for a plan on line. Hopefully you already have an idea of what you want - but if not- do an evaluation of the places you have lived in to identify what you liked and did not like about those houses. Then try to find a plan on line that is close having all the things you like, and minimizes the things that you do not like. It is hard to find the perfect plan - but try to find something that is close. If you totally strike out - the this process will make you smarter when you go and see you architect. Of course through all of this you have to think about the finances too - can you afford what you want.

In paralell to looking for a plan on line - you should be looking for builders and architects that you will want to talk to. Talk to people in your area who have used them - people you know who can vouch for their performance. I suggest mortgage companies (use local, smaller banks) and real estate agents. These people are in the know of who to talk to. Don't use the yellow pages or big ads - the best custom builders (assuming the house will be custom) don't need to advertise - most the their business comes through referals.

I picked a builder (recommended by an architect we did not use in the end). This builder already had his own architect that he used for many years. That turned out to be a good thing since they both understood each other.

Once you have an idea of what you want - then it would be time to start the formal process leading to the design, building contract and build. Some people find the builder first, some the architect. Some look for a package deal.

I think you can do a lot on your own - and the more you do up front, the lower the costs will be in the end. Architects make a lot of money per hour - so the less time you spend with them the lower the cost to you. If you have a very good understanding of what you want - you can minimize change orders with the builder and that will save you money too.

My wife and I found our "dream plan" on line that we studied for months before we found the builder and architect. We already knew what changes we wanted to make - and then the architect made a lot more. From the point we started with the builder/architect - it took 12 months to get tot he contract signing with finished plans start the build (we needed to sell our hosue and move in the middle of all this). And then another 16 months after that to finish the project - so a 2.5 year process not counting what we did up front on our own.

In the end - we did get the dream home built and it is awesome. But it was a long road.

Best of luck.

"Architects make a lot of money per hour"
Lawyers and psychiatrists charge a lot more.

I would not hire an architect through a builder especially if they are pals. The architect should be your agent and represent your interests when dealing with the builder.

I don't mean to say sniffdog is wrong but I have been doing this for 40 years and the single most important thing for an owner to remember is that he/she must control the design and construction process and if you don't know how to do that you need to hire someone who does and who works only for you.

If an architect does a good job he/she is a bargain. Of course, you need to find a good one.

Thanks everybody for your replies. The property is on a lake in Florida and is about ten acres. It is in the city limits of a small town and there are other homes on the adjacent properties. City water is available but even though it is in the city limits when I checked a few years ago city sewer was not available. The house will be set back about 750 feet from the road. The neighbor has a line down the property line for utilities and I was told I could tap off of that. The terrain is typical sandy Florida soil with no rocks. There is a gentle slope from the road down to the lake. Very little clearing would need to be done. It is an orange grove and I left an area down by the lake open with no orange trees in anticipation of building a house there one day. Some orange trees will have to be taken out.

I already know the style of the house I want and the layout of the rooms. Since this is a beautiful lakefront piece of property I don't want to put a stock house on it. I have looked at a few and the impression I get is that most of them are designed for a typical subdivision with no view. This home will need to be custom because of that. I am sort of modeling it after my grandparents home which was designed by an architect back in 1959 and is also on a lake. It maximized the views of the lake from almost every room in the house.

I have consulted with a few architects, builders, home designers, and draftsmen. They are all working on proposals now and I should have them in the next couple of weeks. I do intend to ask for references, I know that is really important. I am under the impression that a draftsman/designer will put together plans cheaper than an architect would. I believe since I already have the style and floor plan picked out I might only need a designer/draftsman to draw it up and then have an architect or structural engineer sign and seal the documents. I would like to save money where I can by not hiring an architect for the design since I already have that picked out but at the same time I would also like for an architect to look over the builders proposal and make a couple of site visits to make sure everything is being done properly. Does this sound right?

When an architect puts his/her name or seal on a drawing it means, by definition, that he/she is certifying that the work was done in his/her office under his/her supervision. If this is not true, the architect can be disciplined by the state board of registration.

Perhaps there are architects in Florida that will take responsibility for someone else's work in violation of state law but I wouldn't count on it.

It sounds to me like it would cost only a small amount more to have an architect design and supervise the project and that can save you some money by avoiding construction errors and disputes later.

Mightyanvil-thanks for the heads up. That is interesting because I have spoken to several home designers and draftsmen and they all said they work with an architect who would sign and seal their plans. I will ask them about that being illegal. It is possible that it would only cost a little more to have an architect for the project. I'll find out when I get the proposals back. If it is within the same price range then I'll use the architect.

I am in the process of building my second custom home. Both times I designed the house myself and just had someone draft it for the structural integrity. The first time (we were quite inexperienced being our first custom build) our real estate agent referred us to a builder who turned out to give us a real good price but not significantly lower compared to other builders in our lake neighborhood. The plan was drawn by a firm that he frequently worked with. The builder turned out to go well beyond what our neighbors got from their builders. Thanks to the real estate agent who was holding our hand through that process.

Fast forward ten years...we are building again. This time we were on our own searching for a builder. Hopefully we chose well. I interviewed architects and draftsman separately from the builder though I did consider referrals from many of the builders we interviewed. It's a pretty small town so most of them have worked together. Since I had already drawn all of the elevations and had done much of the electrical and plumbing plan, the only thing we needed was the footings and specifics of the framing so we are using a draftsman to design the engineering specifics. It is a fairly simple build with a simple roofline. To be honest it all happened at once....finding the builder and designer that is.

It sounds like a great piece of property - thanks for the description. Public water is good. Carefully check out the septic requirements and set backs. Carefully check the soil conditions for where you intend to put the house. Check with the county on rules for building near the water. Minimal clearing is also good.

It sounds like you are well on your way and have a good idea of what you want. I think the draftsman approach is good for detailing your concepts - but I would not expect any architect to just stamp the plans. The architect may have to redraw the plans so they can be approved by the county - and might offer some suggestions on changes - but starting with a solid plan should cut the design time down. Since you are going this route, I would recommend getting your builder involved when you get into the final design stage (making the final set of build to plans). It makes no sense to have a great set of plans that you cannot afford to build. Get inputs from your builder before you lock in the plans.

As far as builders and architects - my builder and architect are not buddies - they are business associates that have worked together for years, and that is a good thing. What you need to watch out for are architects designing something that cannot be built within the budget you have. In the end - the builder is the one who you will count on to deliver the product withinn the schedule and budget requirements you have. That is the reason we did not select the architect who gave us the tip to contact the builder we ultimately selected - that guy had a reputation of creating masterpieces that could not be afforded by the clients.

Once you get on contract - the draftman or architect isn't the one who will be accountable for the end product. It is the builder. Make sure you get a great builder, one who has a stellar reputation for delivering within schedule and cost. Work as hard as you can on this search. Having just been through this myself - I am more convinced than ever that picking the right builder is the most important selection you will make in the custom home building journey you are about to take.

Do some searches on this forum about builder issues and nightmares. Learn from these posts - you don't want that.

Hi,

I built a home in New York State two years ago from the ground up including blasting with dynamite!

I had an architect and work with him first. Then after the design was done we then bid the build contract to about 6 builders. We chose a middle of the bunch in price. Some builders will low-ball, and then add "Extras" later.

Looks like you have a lovely property. One thing I would watch out for is where you site the house. You will need a septic field for sewerage. That field will have I think some EPA constraints as to how near it can be to that lake. That in turn will determine where you can site your house. Note an architect may not be the guy to tell you where the septic can go. You need an engineering company who will sign off on the septic field plans who is licenced by the local health authority.

Good luck on your adventure. Our one lasted 5 years ... it is a long story ... but we made it and so will you!

warmest regards, Mike.

I agree it is possible to get a good house built with a good draftsman and a good builder but it takes either a great leap of faith or a great amount of personal construction knowledge for an owner to give that responsibility to someone who is on the other side of a very large contract.

I deal with owners who do not know much about what they want much less how to build it properly and I try protect them from the inevitable errors and oversights on any construction site. (My brother-in-law decided not to hire me for construction phase services, even at half rate, and he called me yesterday saying that his builder ordered white instead of green windows and they would be delivered next week - now he wants me to negotiate a settlement.)

Full disclosure requires me to say that on rare occasions a builder has corrected one of my mistakes.

Just to flesh this out a little more, mightyanvil:
I am in a smallish town and it seems clear to me that there is one architecture firm in town (I'll call it "ABC") that works with many local home builders in creating house plans. I understand they are considered good at what they do and are also very reasonable in cost. Some of their designs are spec homes (hired by builders to create them)and some are custom. There are a few other firms in town but I get the impression that they are either more "boutique -y" type of one-man shops, or their work is more on the commercial side.

My question is, if most of the builders we'd consider for our house have long-standing relationships with ABC architecture firm, should we avoid using ABC at all costs? Our other option may be to travel to the nearest big city (an hour away) and undergo a difficult search for a firm that does not have the "problem" of having a long-standing relationship with our builder, but clearly there are time and probably money costs there. How important is it that we avoid ABC firm if they have a good, long-term business relationship with whichever builder we decide to use? I've heard that some people hire an inspector (e.g. structural engineer) to inspect at key stages -- would this course of action alleviate the concern you mentioned? Thanks!!!

I would not be afraid of a "good working relationship" between an architect and a builder, in fact it is probably a very good thing, but in such a case I would want some pretty convincing independent evidence that the architect would be working for me and would protect my interests rather than those of the builder in all possible situations.

This is, of course, nothing more than the architect's professional duty when under contract to an owner and failure to perform this duty would not only be highly unethical, it could be considered a breach of contract. A serious complaint to the state registration board would almost certainly result in a hearing and possibly suspension of the architect's license. If an architect was found to have profited from a relationship with a builder while representing an owner, it would most likely result in a license revocation.

This is obviously a very serious issue for an architect and therefore most are careful to avoid a close relationship with a builder unless they are directly hired by the builder or working as a partner or employee.

I know many here will not understand this but an architect is not just a better trained designer or draftsman; an architect has a professional obligation to represent and protect the interests of an owner unlike all of the other participants in a project.

Some things to remember:

A builder is not an owner's agent.
The building code is not a construction manual.
A building inspector does not provide quality control.
"Build it as cheaply as possible" is not a budget.
"Build it as fast as possible" is not a schedule.
Banks do not administrate contracts for construction.
Design drawings are not artistic "guidelines".
A specification is not a list of materials and features.
Allowances are miniature "cost plus" contracts.
An owner is directly responsible to the local municipality for complying with all building codes and local ordinances.

Thanks for your comments; would the "pretty convincing independent evidence" come in the form of references from past customers who have worked with the architect, contract language or some other source? I'm kind of new at this and just want to be sure I know what you mean. Thanks again.

beware

If you can find a builder and architect who have worked together on multiple projects - then go take a look at those projects. Talk to the owners - ask them how the build went. Were they happy with the architect and the builder. That is how to make the selection - see and hear about real world results.

I think it is critical that the two know how to work together. My architect knew exactly how to draw the plans - with the type od detail needed - so that my builder could his job. It probably took several house projects before they got their system down - but after 5 years and many many houses, they have that nailed down.

One example I saw with two houses that my builder was working on where this became clear was my house and my builder had going up but was drawn by a different architect.

My archiect spec'd every window and door and wrote the schedule on the plans so that the window and door company could easily find the schedule, prepare a bid, and order the parts ( and there are a lot of parts). House 2 did not have the window and door schedule on the plans - so the building supply company had to figure it out by measuring off the plans. Guess whose house had no errors on the window/door package and the house who had a giant screw up? It's little details like this that can make a big difference in how your project turns out.

If ABC has worked with your builder before, and the builder you select wortks well with ABC and vs. versa - and you like their work and their cost - then using ABC sounds like a good idea. Why would you want to avoid them at all cost?

I design and administrate projects for contractors I have never met before and for ones I have worked with for 20 or more years. Rarely have I had a problem with one and I have never had a problem that couldn't be resolved quickly to the satisfaction of the owner. (Well, I did have a construction litigator for a client once but that doesn't count.)

For me, the advantages of knowing the GC well are:
1. You can leave some information out of the documents on the assumption that the builder knows your intention. (not recommended)
2. You know what materials he prefers to use, not that it can't be easily worked out with any contractor.
3. You have gotten past the "that's not the way I do it" issues.
4. The contractor will call you about a drawing error before informing the client and visa versa. You might even give each other a break (purely hypothetical)
5. He might send a carpenter over when you need to repair your garage (purely hypothetical).
6. He might give your name to a really wealthy client but is more likely to give it to a complete jackass, then not bid the job.

But I must admit that I have struggled with how to deal with the mistakes of the contractors I know well. It's a terrible dilemma for me because I feel so strongly about my duty to my client. There have been times I have wished I was dealing with a stranger. On the advice of my lawyer, that's all I'm going to say on that subject.

On the subject of window documentation, I'll say that a window schedule should always be provided but submitting the final order to the architect for review is just as important. Contractors can make mistakes no matter what you give them. You should diligently check each other's work rather than give it a pass because you know each other well.

I haven't built my house yet but am well on my way and was just where you were about a year ago. I bought raw land and as a condition of the sale I had a perc and mantle test done to make sure that I could put a septic system in. As others have mentioned, septics near lakes can be problematic both from a technical and administrative point of view. I had a septic engineer design the system, I think it was around $1700 here in CA. For the house plans I designed the house and gave my design to a drafter who had some ideas, clarifications and improvements. The drafting cost was $3100. Then I gave those plans to a structural engineer, that ran $2500. Architects often take a percentage so that can get expensive fast. I could have hired an architect on a flat fee basis but it would have cost me twice as much ( at least ).

Here is a link that might be useful: My Building Site

jedon, your numbers sound close to ours in n.ca. 1500.00 for the septic, 3400.00 for the engineer who also drew our plans. After a rought draft where we made some changes, they were sent off to the county for approval. We made some changes during the framing stages involving structural that required a supplemental once again submitted to the county. He didn't charge us for the supplementals or time spent on the changes and was instrumental in great advise whenever we needed it.

Well, I see two ways of looking at it: We use the architect that has a track record of working with our builder. Great, because there might be fewer mistakes and they work smoothly together. OR, we use that same architect and he is conflicted because he has an incentive to please the builder (his long-standing customer) even though the architect also has a duty to protect our interests. I can imagine it would be pretty tough for this architect to give the builder (his good customer) the bad news that something was done incorrectly and needed to be fixed. I appreciate that the architect has a duty to us the homeowner, but we'll never hire him again after our house is completed, while the builder would, in all liklihood, hire him in the future. That's why I brought up the idea of the "fourth party", i.e. someone like a structural engineer or construction inspector. Would our hiring this kind of professional to inspect tick off the builder? Or would he be out of line to balk at that? Thanks.

I have a dilemma. I understand the importance of an architect who will supposedly have my best interest in mind when dealing with the builder. However, the architects I have consulted with seem to charge really high rates. I would like to take the money that an architect would charge and put it into my house but then again I understand that the architect could catch things that could save me more than their fee. I have found a draftsman that works with one of the high end builders in my community and his rates are very reasonable. However, I understand that plans in my community must be signed and sealed by an architect. I also understand it is illegal for an architect to sign and seal someone else's work so how do draftsmen stay in business if their plans are useless since they aren't signed and sealed by an architect which is a requirement in my area? I would like to hire the draftsman due to his attention to detail, artistic work and reasonable price but won't his work be useless without an architect signing and sealing it which is supposed to be illegal? Am I forced to hire an architect directly and pay their huge fee? I want to make sure I am doing this right but right now I feel trapped and confused!

It is extremely rare for a jurisdiction to require that a house design be stamped by an architect. You should be speaking directly to your local building official about that.

If there are structural elements in the house that are not prescribed in the applicable building code, most jurisdictions require the stamp of an engineer for those elements only and the stamp of an architect would not be acceptable. For simple systems like LVL beams or I-joists your lumberyard can get the manufacturer to provide a drawing and an engineer's stamp.

A draftsman will not be able to provide a fraction of the services that would normally be provided by an architect therefore the higher fee of the architect is usually justified. In addition to drawing plans and elevations an architect would normally provide other services like site planning, engineering consultants, bidding and/or contract negotiation, contract writing and administration, and construction phase observation including dispute resolution and progress documentation.

However, if you are very knowledgeable and experienced regarding home design, contracts, and construction methods, and have the time to deal with these issues, you might be able to do without an architect. In that case you would only need a draftsman and an engineer.

I'm curious what fee you would think is too high for full architectural services if you would be willing to share that with us.

You can have the draftsman make the plans and have an engineer review the design, make sure the loads are correct and within code, and then stamp them.

It sounds like you already have a very good idea of what you want. If you were starting from a blank sheet of paper - then an architect would make sense.

We had a similar problem - already had a good set of plans that we bought on line. One of the architects we interviewed wanted $30,000 to take the plans, make the changes we wanted, and then produce a new set of plans. He did not get hired.

It is not mandatory to hire your own architect to build a good home - lots of people on this forum have built homes with stock plans and no architecture services. But it is a must to have a good builder. I would suggest working up your preliminary plans with the draftsman while looking for the best builder you can find. The preliminary plans should be detailed so that the builders you interview can make estimates on cost.

Once you have a builder selected, work with them to take the preliminary plans and create the final set of plans. The builder should know what needs to be done to have the plans approved by the county to get your permits - and I am sure will make inputs too. You might still need an architect - that depends on the complxity of the design - but you can work that out with your builder, and if you already have a good set of plans to start with then the architecture services you do need should be minimized.

I am wondering sniffdog, and any others who want to chime in, would there be any additional oversight during the building process as you describe it? In other words, would any professional other than the builder inspect the house as it is being built? If so, who would that be? Draftsman? Architect? Independent construction inspection specialist? I've learned from this forum that even builders who seem to be fantastic and who have great references can **sometimes** build terrible houses. I know architects sometimes have inspection as part of their services, but I remain concerned about their incentives to keep on good terms with the builder (who, especially in a smaller town, is often their repeat customer).

beware - great question.

I can tell you that in our case, both DW and I were did our own inspections. The builder did not personally inspect his own work and relied on his people to get things right, and his trim team to do inspections of all work done (and they were quite good - but did not catch everything).

The bank inspector was a joke - do not count on them to do a detailed home inspection. They come out and look for 5 minutes, it is very top level.

A friend of mine hired his own inspector during his whole house remodel project. That worked out well for him - since this guy was working for him and not the bank. And when things were discovered, he could use the inspector as the bad guy when telling the builder it had to be fixed.

Our architect did visit the house a few times during the project - somethimes just to see for himself and others to work a few framing glitches that we had. I don't think I would have hired our acrhitect to perform the building inspections - even if he offered that service. I would look for a certified building inspector - one who has many years of building experience (perhaps was once a builder). You need someone who will look in the nooks and cranny's of the work - that is where we found most of our issues (e.g, electrical wires not run or hooked up wrong, missing insulation, windows in the wrong spot, trim that was improperly installed, sqeeky floors, roof leaks, etc).

By the way - even if you hire your own inspector, you should look around at the place yourself - as much as you can. I always made a point after a hard rain to visit the house and look around - with a flash light up in the attic, around the windows and doors, in the basement - it was the best leak test you could ask for. I found several leaks around chimney flues that would have become even bigger issues down the road and had them fixed right away.

If you are not comfortable with inspecting the work yourself - i think it is a great idea to hire someone to carefully look over the work especially before the draws are paid to the builder.

Your bank inspector is not inspecting for the quality of the work performed, he's only inspecting that materials have been delivered and work has been done before he will release the next draw of funds!

Thanks for the heads up! In our case, we do not plan to have a bank loan, so we are on our own anyway as far as any inspections go. I guess I am just a little apprehensive about hiring a person who specializes in home construction inspections as I **think** that it is a bit unusual where we live. Upshot is, my concern is that a builder might balk at agreeing to inspections. I guess it's just something you need to finesse....

If the builder balks, I'd change builders.

IMO, most builders want to do their best, with the comprehension that oversights happen. They are craftsmen, and experts like to be admired by those in the know (as well as those who aren't in the know). There isn't anything better for business than a satisfied customer.

However, if the builder is inclined to overlook or ignore not-up-to-par work -- which is what the inspector is looking for -- then of course the builder will not be willing to have a knowledgeable person looking at their work.

My mum introduced her inspector (and this was in a rural area in the days of rare inspectors) to her GC with the cheerful comment that when the house was done and she was showing off to her friends, the inspector would be proof that she wasn't exaggerating about how good it was. The inspector did find oversights -including a bit of flashing that wasn't sealed- which were corrected immediately. At the end of the build, both gentlemen commented that this was one of the best houses they had done; mum bragged to everyone and 2 friends did choose that GC. All of which is to point out that people can/will make mistakes, but correcting does not have to be an adversarial process, and it's cheaper, faster, and easier to correct during the build than afterwards.

beware beware!

meldy has it right. If the GC is balking at having an inspector - that should raise a HUGE red flag. Besides - you can do whatever you want - the builder does not have a say in who you hire to look over the work - because the inspector works directly for you! If the builder is that good - he should welcome the extra set of eyes to look things over. Catching things early on is in everyone's best interest - to build the best house possible and to minimize any costs of repair.

Having someone familiar with construction - perhaps a retired builder - perform the inspections (assuming they are certified) makes perfect sense because they should know exactly where to look. Where do you live that it is uncommon to have building inspections? Before any re-sale home is sold in our area, a home inspection is almost always done. This is the same thing - except the home is being inspected as it is being built.

If you are financing this on your own - then you should definately find your own independent inspector who works directly for you and is paid by you. Prior to each draw, have them come out and inspect all work. If you find issues with any of the work done that is being paid for in that draw, have it fixed before the draw is paid. This is not unreasonable - since you are paying for work that is completed - and it should be completed correctly. If the builder is not willing to accept this - then you should find a different builder.

In the case of resales, yes, houses are inspected. But with new home construction I am not so sure what's common here. In all liklihood, we would not own the lot; we'd build in a subdivision where it's common for a relatively small down payment to be made upfront and then all the rest provided at closing.

Lots to think about. I certainly see the logic that builder should want to correct mistakes so no big problems happen in the future. I've seen posts here before, though, where homeowner is unpleasantly surprised that builder is balking at "fixing" something that the builder says is just "the way it's always been done." I gather that common practices are sometimes poor practices. Those kinds of problems are what you need to avoid.

The problem for the GC is not having someone catching errors, it is having somebody tell him how to build the house.

This is only a problem because homes are rarely built from full architectural and mechanical design drawings like commercial projects and GCs typically act as designers of many aspects of a house and like to give the owner "packages" from which to choose, etc. The Builder is the leader in a house project just as the Architect is the leader in a commercial project.

In my opinion, the obvious way to get around this problem is to hire an architect to provide complete design drawings, observe the construction, and administrate the contract. If this is too expensive, you will have to rely on the contractor to provide quality control of his own work or put up with an awkward situation created by the presence of a consultant/inspector whose role will be difficult to define in the contract so that his judgments could be enforced by the Owner.

So, it's pay now or pay later as usual.