It comes down to how many changes you want to make.

As an architect, I'm admittedly biased, but most of the online stock plans are just not good designs. The flow is bad, they don't take into account the lot, they often don't represent what the client wants/needs, and they add extra unnecessary features to drive up the costs. While the plans on their own might be cheap, most designers/builders will charge A LOT to alter these.

Now if you find the perfect stock plan and want to make so changes, then that probably is the cheaper route. But getting a custom-designed home by an ARCHITECT and having that built is actually cheaper than most people realize.

You have given us a lot of alternatives with very little detail and everything hinges on the details.

Would you buy CAD files from the architect with the right to modify them? Is the architect local?

How large is the house? What is your budget?

IMO you are better off to start with an architect go armed with some things you need but be open to ideas I have not seen a stock plan that is perfect and by the time you start chging thins you would be better off to just start from scratch

Recent discussion on this subject you might find useful: https://www.houzz.com/discussions/5799944/new-construction-architect-vs-design-build-firm#n=209

This forum leans heavily on 'hire an architect.' And I agree with caveats.

I think architects are great BUT you need to be prepared with knowledge as to what you can afford. I see all the time on here that they get the architect design back and when they go to a builder, they learn it's $100k over budget or whatever and have to shrink or scrap [after paying thousands for the plan].

Right now, I have a friend who is going through the sticker shock now that her design is going out for bid and she's not sure what to do. She sent me the plans and I can see why it's priced the way it is but she was blindsided.

Also, it's really hard to find a good architect that can get you in. I tried 3 that friends had recommended and they were all 2-3 months out. Hindsight, probably would have been worth waiting...but hindsight is always 20/20 and we wanted to start asap.

We went with a designer who was a builder before so he understood pricing...BUT he wasn't an architect and was really slow so we struggled on that end....and original floorplan was still over budget but we were able to modify.

So, all that to say I would go with an architect BUT I would also meet with some builders you like and see some plans that they have done and finishes etc. and find out pricing so you can go to the architect with more knowledge.

Best of luck.

I would go to an architect, but let him know the budget you have in mind for the actual build.

I like the architect way. Set your budget ahead of time. Work with them to involve a great builder as early in the design phase as possible. It may cost more (it will), but at least from my experience I think it is worth it... All of those things I see people post about that went wrong with their build...... We've covered them all and more. Thus, You may make it up in not having as many costly "fixes," "changes" or "bugs" and that means less mental anguish which is very tough to put a price on! (unless you just add up all the bottles of wine or bourbon) LOL :)

We did architect. If you have the money, yes, do it. If I was doing it all over again, I'd go design/build, and customize. "Give me your biggest spec house, add a bedroom and make the garage bigger."

I think budget, region and lot configuration all play a role in this decision.

Small flat suburban lot with $300k budget is different than large lot with terrain changes which is different than urban lot with $1M budget. So give some details.

If you're making only a few, minor modifications, it is usually less expensive to have the original designer make those changes to plans they own. It also avoids potential copyright issues. Do keep in mind that the plans they produce may not comply with local building code requirements in your area.

Most stock plans show the home constructed on a perfectly flat lot which can lead to unpleasant "surprises" during construction if the plans are not revised to reflect the specific topography of the site on which it will be built. You will be well served to ensure the foundation plan and elevations are accurate for your building site.

It all depends on your needs and your budget. If you have a design you like already and only need a few modifications I would suggest design/build. If you want a truly custom home that meets your needs, responds to your site (as in taking best advantage of views, etc.) and is truly unique - then hire an architect. Good luck with whatever you choose.

There are advantages and disadvantages to each.

Design/build or building from stock plans, duplicating existing homes are the easiest most predictable cost method of custom home building.

Architect designed homes from scratch can also be predictable if the participants are willing.

I've done all of the above. Some pretty exciting homes.

My first that the client and architect had "worked outside my guidance" was about 25% over my initial expectations other homes the same size, so I worked a week to detail a cost reduction strategy. Clients were hardly interested as they expected the costs where they landed. Great home, project, clients.

I hope, regardless of which of the two avenues you take, you have a home designed from scratch that meets your needs and fits the site. Too many times people try to select a preconceived design and fix it to work. Think of the person that helps you design your home as an artist and an engineer that creates something extraordinary for you, and that the home will be there long after you die and will influence lives for a very long time. Don't just create shelter, create architecture. You owe it to yourself, your family, and everyone that steps a foot inside it and drives past it.