That's if they even agree to that. I spoke with one and he agreed only that I could look at what he came up with, but no hard copies permitted.

You'd be better off doing your due diligence in finding an architect who you can work with and then creating a list of your wants, needs and wouldn't it be nice to haves. Then do a bubble diagram and as Cooks Kitchen suggested create all sorts of idea books of the type of style, etc you like.

One doesn't go in and say, I want 3 from column b and 2 from column a and please put it together on the plate. It's a collaborative process where there's lots of back and forth between you and the architect.

Do a search in this forum for "charette" (maybe someone will help with some good links.) One or more of the architects on this forum has discussed how he starts with a client using this approach to capture their wishes and thoughts. Understanding how an architect will start with you might help you narrow down to a single architect before any plans are drawn.

Interview a few architects and go with the one that understands your ideas the best (and whose work you like). Usually the preliminary design or design development fee is hourly and we knew less than $2,500 in (out of around 50,000 total) that we were on the right track with our first choice. If you get to that point and you find out his way isn't working for you, you can move on and just be out those charges. just be sure that is spelled out up front that you can terminate at any stage and just pay for the work done up to that point.

Le Corbusier famously said, "Design is a patient search!" If you think architects simply "cook" up a design for "tasting"...one is chocolate, one is strawberry and one is vanilla...then you don't understand how architectural design explores and builds upon various organizing concepts, with the architect and owner working together. In that case, Cook's Kitchen is right: you are wasting your money and time.

There's a big difference in working with an architect and a design/build firm. The former only provides professional services and represents the client's best interests. The latter is essentially a construction firm, which represents their own best business interests, which has either an in-house architectural or design employee, or contracts out separately for design services. In either case, the designer is working for the builder.

Good luck on your project.

What is the "total project cost"?

What drawings do you require in the "preliminary design"?

Your best choice for an architect may not want to play ball. Also I usually meet with clients for at least two hours before putting pencil to paper. Do you have time and inclination to do that with several different people? My guess is that in your interview process you'll find someone you bond with.

Only a desperate idiot would agree to something like that. In this very busy construction climate, I don’t think you’ll find 3 desperate idiots. Idiots, sure. But anyone with a license for anything construction related is up to their eyeballs in work. And they don’t need a high maintenance goof ball who has watched too much HGTV slowing them down. That’s a thanks but no thanks 5 minute interview in their part.

Remember that they are interviewing you just as much as you are interviewing them. And looking at your idea books, you have very expensive taste. If you utter the classic,”I’m on a budget” words to anyone with those wants, you can also guarantee a polite ushering out of their office and no callback. Yeah, they’ll sugar coat the interactions. I won’t.

The way we chose an architect was to first look at other houses she/he had done, to look at the type of houses and styles that architect creates. Even if a house reflects a client's wants and desires, the house (I feel) will have a particular style that's based on the architect's work. One architect (the one we eventually chose) actually went out with us for an hour or two, to show us some of the houses he had designed. This step can go before you even meet with the architect. And I agree, have some of your ideas in hand, to see what the architect's response is

I've participated in an "invitation only" design competition for residential projects three times over the last 40 years and all three went very well. Swamped today but I'll see if I can find time to expand on that concept sometime later.

So here's a guy that is willing to spend money for folks time to make sure that they "gel" before embarking on a 6/7 figure project. I see NOTHING wrong with this. And maybe everyone is so busy they won't participate - fine. This is the fun damn part - drawing, getting to know, growing the idea / program. If they don't have time for this, then perhaps that tells you that they don't have time for the REAL work that comes later.

We narrowed our choices and interviewed about 3 architects (after having an easy way to view their works via a local enthusiast website). Ultimately - we went with "A", and then that didn't quite work, so we moved to someone not even on the original list. And of course - we paid for work completed.

I think this is a pretty fair / decent / respectful way to do this.

Nope. It shows a lack of respect. And a lack of an ability to trust.

I've never built a house or hired an architect, but after a couple of years of learning on this board, I believe that "concrete ideas for how they would approach my project" is the last thing you want.

As others have said (much better than I could), design is a process, not a recipe. As soon as an idea in the process becomes concrete, it limits other ideas.

The design process is also a dance. There is no possible way that you can convey all of your wants, needs, don't likes, and inspirations in a single meeting, no matter how copious your notes. I think of it kind of like going to the eye doctor: "Which is clearer, A or B?" Going through iterations of "which do you prefer?" with your chosen architect will guide them to a design that will work best for you and your family.

Good luck with your project.

AnnKH, I couldn't have said it better.

There's nothing to indicate that the OP is trying to do this in a single meeting. Looking at the architects style, researching their works, maybe even talking to past clients - and then paying them for some preliminary designs doesn't seem to limit the OP to a couple hours of billing.

The OP wrote, "...I find it hard to commit to a single firm before seeing any concrete ideas for how they would approach my project..."

The OP thinks s/he is purchasing a product or a commodity, rather than a professional service.

S/he apparently believes by test driving a Ford, Chevrolet and Dodge, s/he can fit what fits best.

I wonder if this is how s/he selects a doctor, attorney, accountant, engineer, pharmacist, vet, etc.?

Good luck with the process. Let us know how it works out for you.

Thanks for all the responses to my original post. It's great to have a vibrant community like this and I appreciate the diversity of opinions. In hindsight, I should've added more context up front, so here it is:

I feel fortunate to have the option to build a new custom home instead of just buying an existing one. Perhaps I'll be lucky enough to get to build a new home more than once, but most likely this is going to be the one chance I get to realize the dream of owning a home custom-built for me. I also know I'll need a good set of experts to help me realize that dream, people who will become my partner over the next one, likely two years till fruition.

In choosing that partner, I would like to go beyond meeting them a few times, looking at what else they've built and talking to their previous clients. I would like to see how they would actually approach my project, including which architects or designers I get to work with in their firm, what kind of input they ask of me and how open they are to my input, how well they're articulating trade-offs (say between cost and quality), and so on. I'm willing to make the time commitment (all have said the process to get to schematic drawings and initial cost estimates will take at least 6-8 weeks), plus I'd pay for their time so even if I don't end up choosing them they're compensated for the time already spent on my project. If I do choose them, then they'd know I had a lot more basis on which to choose them over the other firms, for what it's worth. Perhaps they could use me as a reference in the future and I could tell their prospective clients that I actually experienced the preliminary design phase with a number of other firms and found this firm to be the best fit for me.

I totally get that I'm adding to the time and cost of my project. I think it would be worth it for the information it will provide about how different firms work. I also intend to have at least one architecture firm and one design/build firm in the process; very different business models and it would be interesting to see first-hand what the trade-offs are. (I may even blog about it, to share what I've learned with others.) Most of all, there's the greater satisfaction I'll have in having selected a partner with more basis and direct experience with them before making a final choice.

At this point I've spoken to about a half dozen firms and I've been completely transparent with my reasoning above. All have been recognized for their work, have a good presence and following here on Houzz and have received sterling feedback from their past clients. Only one said they're not interested in this set-up; the rest didn't mind the competition and were confident they would be a good fit for the project.

Thanks again.

If "this process" for selecting a doctor means that the patient pays for an initial consultation to see if the Dr is a good fit and if they want to entrust their future health planning and guidance to them is wrong, then I don't want to be right. Dentists offer new patient specification ills for folks to get to know them. vets offer "puppy packages" - this appears to actually be wuite common in the professional services realm.

My architect offered a feasibility study approach with a meeting / site meeting and preliminary sketches / floor plan, etc to see if it made sense before committing 6 figures via a contract. That study was $3K. (and it's part of their standard offering!) What's wrong with that process???? Am I supposed to sign a contract for over $100K based on their body of work or a single (gratis) phone call? And please don't tell me that not wanting to do that means I can't "trust" them...

If the OP was purchasing a commodity, then the entire "test" process would be unnecessary because the product would be the same regardless of the supplier. (that's the definition of a commodity).

I appreciate that NWtechguy is taking the design process seriously by trying to assemble a good design team. I commend you for being transparent and up front with everybody.

The tradition of architectural competition has an extremely long and notable history. The problem with residential architects is that they try to turn that accepted tradition inside-out in an effort to keep their market share of the single family housing industry below 2%.

You would not buy a car without knowing what it looked like first, would you?

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Architectural_design_competition 

NWTech, thank you for the clarification. That makes a lot more sense.

While design competitions are common for large prestigious commercial or institutional projects they're quite uncommon for residential projects. I've only ever seen them for very large, very expensive homes.

Thus the reason less than 2% are designed by architects. Why should a hard working person have to settle for potluck?

I am not saying there needs to be an actual competition per say, but people should be able to know more specifically that what they are buying is going to be worth the price and suit their needs before committing... pretty much the whole basis behind capitalism.

I can't imagine that I wouldn't have a pretty good idea of what an architect does by looking at his portfolio and talking with him. A local architect whose work I admired, would probably be a good fit.

As to who I would get at a large, prestigious firm - well, unless my budget was in the stratosphere, I wouldn't expect to get the top person, anymore than I would at a prestigious interior design firm. One gets the "up and comers", not the big name. For instance, if I went with Deborah Berke, I doubt Deborah would be doing all the designing. She's a very famous architect and is the recently named Dean of the Architecture School at Yale. I think my project would have to be VERY unusual and with a budget in the 7-8 figures to get her personally.

I can't imagine why on earth you would waste your time on a designer/builder. That person will NOT work for you, but for the builder. The designer's duty is to design a plan that will be less work and more profit for the builder.

Frankly, I think you are doing some very expensive tire-kicking. Think of this as buying an automobile. One can have a few test drives to find out if it is for one, but one need not buy several and then decide which to keep, selling the others. Not even a very wealthy person would be that financially stupid.

Are you truly equating the study of cardiology to that of architecture? How many different and creative ways would you like your cardiologist to perform your quadruple bypass?

I'm with Architectrunnerguy (aren't we ALL ALWAYS with Architectrunnerguy, who happens to be the guy most known around here for "charettes")...while this model of a design competition is less common at the residential scale, there's certainly a lot to be gained if one has the stomach and the cash for it.

I've also been involved in this type of competition...as long as you're up front and everyone who agrees to it gets paid, what harm could come of it? Worse case scenario is that someone gets paid for doing the funnest part of the job. Go for it!

Architecture is a commissioned work. There is no product until the architect creates a concept. Should we create that product for free and hope the client will pay for it. NWTechGuy is at least willing to pay to "kick a few tires" and be honest about what he's doing. I'm also getting a sense he's wise enough to not try to do a mash up of all the ideas he'll get this way.

I like Anglophilia's car-buying analogy, but I'd opine that this isn't as expensive as buying each car.
I'd say this is an expensive 'kicking of the tires' to the tune of renting each one for a month.
NWTech gets to have some fun, invite some friends for a couple of weekend cruises, perhaps even lament missing out on the highlights of one of the ultimately inferior models.
And in the end, gets the best fit and has gotten to really enjoy the design process. We should all be so lucky.

"Architecture is a commissioned work." - Really? Who made THAT a law?

It is only done that way because the architect CHOOSES to write the contract that way. MANY architects do spec work.

http://www.allisonramseyarchitect.com/house-plans.cfm

(Just the first one that came up)

In the art world, "commissioned work" is only "common for large prestigious projects" and by people in higher demand than 2% - most is sold after the product is created. On the other side, is there a law against commissioning just some preliminary work?

I think I will write that into my next building contract. "All work is commissioned. Anything that is not done to the client's satisfaction is deemed creative expression of the builder and must be paid for in full by the client before changes are made." - See, I can do the same thing :)

And, do not say that it is because it is the accepted practice, because if it were, architects would be designing more than 2%.

I have done and will do spec work in certain circumstances. I can and will choose who I will work for. That is my law.

I still want to know What is the "total project cost"? And What drawings do you require in the "preliminary design"?

This could be a lucrative project to pursue.

NW - How did you, or how are you going to, select your spouse??

On the other side, is there a law against commissioning just some preliminary work?

Nope. No law at all. I do it all the time... it usually leads to a full project.

As long as the OP is open and transparent about his motives and preferred approach, it's up to each architectural or design-build firm that is interviewed to make their own business decision about participation or not.

The open question remains, however, as to the degree to which the OP understands how conceptual design works, and the extent to which the OP is willing to work closely with and pay each of the participating firms to move through initial conceptual explorations together and then to move to a more finite schematic design.

To get to a "tangible" schematic design that is responsive to a consumer's needs and wants; site and jurisdiction constrains; budget; and is a creative and rewarding architectural direction means a series of initial explorations involving stop and start-over, refine and refine again to produce the following: 1) site plan; 2) floor plans; 3) key sections; 4) elevations or perspectives and a 5) roof plan.

Architects don't simply pull a rabbit out of a hat. Unlike auto manufacturers, there are no "last year models" on which new fins and a tail light can be added to market as next year's appealing model. Or the next person's house who comes along.

So multiply this situation by "X" number of architectural firms and design-build firms all working at the same time on the same project!

This situation is the extreme opposite of many of the posts we see here where consumers moan about the cost of architectural services and refuse professional services thinking they cannot afford the services and they don't really need them.

Hopefully the OP will let us know how his process works for him.

To the OP, please keep us in the loop as to how it goes for you.

With all the frustrations and expense folks here have I would suggest you

find a houseplan that is similar to what you want then have it modified or

take it to an architect and make it yours.

Just my $.02. If you tell an architect that you may or may not use his/hers plans after they completed and instead want to create a competition and "then choose the best design that fits your budget" - expect to be assigned a priority just like in MS Windows "BELOW_IDLE". For many architect it takes months and months to complete the contract for paying customers. Especially if they do any commercial work.

=

I would explore the market to determine type of house you like. Interview architects to determine: (1) if they have an interest in your project (2) if they designed similar projects with similar architecture / styles. If you like an architect that for residential construction like to do farm houses asking to design a modern architecture - could result in disappointment. (3) tell them time is of the essence you need something delivered with in 30 days.

=

I end the conversation with standard questions: If you are to design a house for this property which way would you orient it [kitchen, family room]. Where would you place a driveway, how would you align the front of the house, what house style would you suggest. If you have a budget in mind tell the budget to the architect and ask possibility.

j_gw - That is NOT the way to design a home.

I've finally gotten around to updating my blog in case anyone is interested in how it turned out. Broke ground last summer and hoping to move in this summer