We live in Connecticut and want to put an addition of approximately 400 square feet onto the back lower level of our house. We also want to expand the 2nd floor 7’x 10′ master bath over the lower level. It will add approx 8 feet onto the family, kitchen and dining room. They are each only 10 feet wide now. Budget is approx $150,000.00. We have been told it is better to hire a Builder Designer than an architect, that the designer tries to design within our budget. Please any advise????
Discussion Forum
Discussion Forum
Up Next
Video Shorts
Featured Story
Framing the floor inside a crawlspace foundation keeps a gable-end addition close to grade.
Featured Video
Highlights
"I have learned so much thanks to the searchable articles on the FHB website. I can confidently say that I expect to be a life-long subscriber." - M.K.
Fine Homebuilding Magazine
Fine Home Building
Follow
-
Fine Homebuilding
Dig into cutting-edge approaches and decades of proven solutions with total access to our experts and tradespeople.
Start Free Trial Now -
GBA Prime
Get instant access to the latest developments in green building, research, and reports from the field.
Start Free Trial Now
Replies
I am an Architect...but I know many Home Designers that know far more about home design than the typical Commercial Architect. I would talk to home designers and Architects that specialize in Residential.
That is partly true, and more so with design/build firms with a history.
With either, the key is following references and getting someone who you can communicate with, and whose style you like.
Welcome to the
Taunton University of Knowledge FHB Campus at Breaktime.
where ...
Excellence is its own reward!
"We have been told it is better to hire a Builder Designer than an architect, that the designer tries to design within our budget."
Told by who? Design/Build firms?
it's not so important which way you go, Design/Build or Remodeler/Architect ..what's more critical is relationship and communication. Communication screws up the budget far more often than firms rather they be designers or architects
Contact some architects and designers--take your pick. Chat a bit. If you like them, ask for a sample of the contract they would use to design your project. Read the contract. Look for the part where it says they are NOT responsible for designing to any particular budget. If they're using the forms from AIA it will be there.
The difficult thing is that archys/designers know how to design and builders know the current pricing of materials and labor. And rarely the twain shall meet. That's what design/build is supposed to take care of. And now there's a move in the architectural community to take on building as well--adding their own version of design-build as a means of providing another "revenue stream." It's not catching on much with architects. It's truly hard these days to be a master of all trades.
I have become better acquainted with this state of affairs than I wanted to, having just finished getting my new house designed. I brought a builder in early, as the architect advised, but not early enough. Archy had already designed something 50% over the budget according to the builder. That was fine; time to whittle it down. Guess what? Archy was not, contractually, responsible for building to my budget. Since she was that far off, we, with the builder couldn't find enough to cut to get back within budget without a LOT of revisions. THAT'S AN ADDITIONAL SERVICE, says the archy. So, we paid a lawyer to help us fire her. Worked with the builder and a draftsman to finish up the design, bring it within budget, get the construction drawings done.
This is standard operating procedure. So, consider yourself forewarned. READ YOUR CONTRACT AND HIRE AN ATTORNEY TO MAKE SURE THERE'S NOT SOME CASE LAW THAT WILL RESULT IN IT BEING INTERPRETED IN A WAY THAT YOU AS A LAYMAN DON'T UNDERSTAND.
"And now there's a move in the architectural community to take on building as well--adding their own version of design-build as a means of providing another "revenue stream." It's not catching on much with architects."
Partly this is because their professional associations place restrictions on architects acting as contractors. The idea is that the architect's role is one of acting on behalf of their clients, especially in preparing contract documents and drawings. This puts them in a conflict of interest if a dispute occurs involving the interpretation of the scope or quality of work.
Here in Canada this is why so many design-build firms are run by the more than 30% of architectural graduates who have chosen not to get registered.
Edit: really good advice about getting a lawyer by the way...
Edited 9/7/2007 6:34 pm ET by fingersandtoes
Yep. That has been the tradition in architecture and a lot of architects feel real strongly, and have expressed it to me that if they were also responsible for the construction, who would be riding herd on the builder and watching out for the client? Well, ok.So, in one of these little discussions I got motivated to delve into the AIA's P.R. and I find there is some scuttling this design/build idea around. Kind of an undercurrent. I actually bought a book on the subject and tried to wade through it; gave it to my archy for her enjoyment. She said she's had several clients ask if she does/would do design/build. I asked her too initially. Makes it more turnkey for the homeowner.
Co-oped in college with several architectural firms in the late 80's. Design/build had an ugly connotation back then. Professionally, it was considered bad form for an architect to do both. The reason was that it gave the architect an inside track on also acting as the contractor. Kind of a co-mingling of religion and state, according to the AIA.
The truth was it only separated the architect more from the construction process. Design/build is becoming a hot topic now, and they're giving lectures on it at AIA conventions. Architects are getting more and more into it, with good results. Designs are more provacative. Ideas are more inventive than with the typical staid developer. But it'll be awhile before the stigma really starts to disappear.
<!----><!----><!---->
Nope, the aia no longer has those restrictions. Go check out their website. Here's a clip: I see that the AIA has teamed up with the DBIA to present a series of workshops called, Advanced D-B Strategies for Architects that are being put on all over the country this year.Advanced Design-Build Strategies for Architects--workshops no less. Their website is full of "the aia now supports architect-led D-B" and "it's no longer a question of IF, but a matter of HOW, architects will implement D-B as a project delivery method." The future is here. So I guess all us customers will just get worked over by builders now that our architects will be in bed with them.
Architects, partly due to their prickly nature, don't really get along, and have always had a very weak professional association compared to say Engineers. Here in Canada they have lost their exclusive role on projects as the Coordinating Professional to other consultants. This and the declining rate of registration of recent grads I mentioned has caused a real crisis in the profession. In Britain there was even talk of de-certifying the title Architect, allowing anyone to use it.
If the design-build initiative goes ahead, another consultant will probably emerge to act as the client's advocate in the building process - much as Patient Advocates have for people trying to negotiate the medical system here.
Well, that explains a little curiosity. Here in GA the architects are trying to get legislation passed that would prevent engineers from being allowed to stamp construction plans for commercial buildings over--I forget--10 stories high? I think that's it. Which strikes me as really, really strange. Who would you think would be better prepared to engineer a tall structure than--an engineer?! I think that speaks to architects feeling some threat from the engineering profession, at least around here. Well, there's always turf-protecting. But I gotta say that in talking to homeowners, the system of an architect designing and a contractor building does NOT go smoothly. For anybody, really. Certainly not for the owner whose interests are supposedly being protected.
"I think that speaks to architects feeling some threat from the engineering profession, at least around here."I'm familiar with lots of cases in which homeowners themselves have done the "design" work and then had engineers draw up the plan set, making sure to size and detail everything to meet structural demands. Having a PE stamp goes a long way towards getting a rubber stamp approval from the city, too.I'm sure that the engineers allowing homeowners to cut the architects out of the loop must be a source of irritation for architects, too.
The future is here. So I guess all us customers will just get worked over by builders now that our architects will be in bed with them.
Well, there's a very real problem in that, as a business, being GC can be profitable. Whereas, as a business, an archy shop is much more problematic. One "cure" for that is to combine the two busineses and split the profit. There's merit for and against that as a strategy.
There are two distinct flies in the ointment, though, to spoil national aia prognostications.
First off, residential DB is a very different sort of thing than commercial DB. (Really, that aia statement was about commercial work on projects >$5-10 million range, where DB might actually take a year out of the process). Residential DB is a firmly established "contractor led" enterprise not likely to change much (unless national aia ever works out how much money is involved in the millions of smaller projects, rather than dozens of huge projects--hopefully beltway blinders will prevent that sad occurance).
Secondly, "architect led" DB will always be "behind the curve" in jurisdictions "with authority." Why is that? Because the munis are all set up around the "old" school. So, wet stamps, and review-markup-resubmit cycles are "built in." That's because there's all sorts of case law in place, which means that City Attorneys can be comfortable creating or adopting laws for things they don't really know anything about.
The thing to watch for is if the national aia shysters ever come up with a method for "architect led' DB where the archy gets all the profit and takes little ofthe risk, well then, katie bar the door (picture a DB run by aia G702 <blecch>).
Occupational hazard of my occupation not being around (sorry Bubba)
Crrently the advice from the aia to their members is this: be sure in your D-B contract to separate out the liability for your design from the liability for the build. Because [although you may be engaging in D-B] as an archy you have no control over the quality of the build.So, assuming they can get the insurance underwriting worked out, and we KNOW they can get lawyers to write the contracts for it, they will be able to engage in D-B with no more liability than they have for design only. The future is here!It was interesting to me in contracting with architects for design only that the more or less standard liability limit written into their contracts was 250K. This is a big city, and most residential architects are designing pretty pricey houses (mine being the exception). So, if they design a house that falls down because of bad design, and the house cost 2mil to build, their liability ends at 250K?You're right. An architect who wants to make big bucks does not do only residential work. The one I used did mostly commercial. Unfortunately, the two structures are VERY different. I think it generally requires a residential architect to design a house, and to work well with a homeowner. But as a profession, that's not where the money is.I know this: the current system does not serve the client well. It's broke and needs fixing. But I don't think I've seen the right fix yet. I believe for residential work it is more likely to come from builders running the show and bringing in architects as design consultants rather than the other way around. And everybody using engineers as appropriate.
So, if they design a house that falls down because of bad design, and the house cost 2mil to build, their liability ends at 250K?
Correct me if I'm wrong, but don't architects get engineers to run load calcs 99% of the time? So if a house falls down, wouldn't the engineer be the person on the hook?
It's been my assumption that an architect's insurance is primarily for covering errors -- for example, if it turns out that there's not enough room for a stairwell as drawn, or if the equivalent of "typos" on a plan set results in some rework in the field.
Edited 9/8/2007 8:36 pm ET by Ragnar17
Some archys get engineers to run calculations. Others don't, just do it in house. No different than contractors - some sub stuff out and others don't.
I worked with architectural cases in NY for about 15 years, until about 2 years ago. Architectural policies (generally) cover all errors. That includes everything from missing a budget, to providing a bad contractor's name, to providing the wrong sized structural beam, missing bad construction in an inspection, and on and on.
The AIA had a big problem with D/B. I guess they got over it out of necessity.
On the other hand, I found many times the architect or engineer got named in suits because they were big names, with, they carried insurance. I saw (too many) cases where the designer was really blameless but got dragged in anyway. Example - Designer specs a sprayed roofing on a school, with calculations for wind speed etc. contractor comes in ans sprays in windy weather, with the wrong mix of material using too much "thinner". People in the school get a headache and sue architect, contractor, etc. We go to a conference and the plaintiff's lawyer says give me 45K and I'll go away. Why 45? He says, "Cause there are 7 defendants and they can each pay 5K". (The case didn't settle that day.) Insurance carriers would rather pay 5K to settle than 25 to defend.
Or, how about the designer that's getting paid to do "periodic inspections", then gets sued because one day when they weren't there, the contractor buried some poor work? It's not as easy as it looks.
Don K.
EJG Homes Renovations - New Construction - Rentals
Yeah, the insurance money available wags the dog. The archy I finally used for my house, I think limited her E&O insurance to $250K for that very reason: she knew that most of the time she was gonna be the small fish in the bigger insurance pond. And pay cheaper premiums all along.Interesting approach she had. Even for a slab on grade, one-story house in a non-seismic/no high wind area, she routinely brought in a structural engineer before she sited the house. I knew she'd want him later for the foundation design, but I asked why so early. She said it was to more fully share the potential liability with him. That's doing business these days in any field: discuss the work with the client, then assess the potential risk and start to manage it. Most of us don't have a clue why what's done is done. I don't sleep any better at night for knowing it, though.
I limit my liability to $50K and have had no problems with anyone not agreeing to it. And whenever possible I do design only and a draftsman or another architect does the construction documents.
There's little if any liability in saying "Let's put the kitchen here and the master bedroom there" and I'm best at being the creative guy anyway.
I've only been sued once in a 30 year career and that case was withdrawn by the plaintiff. Was so p****d o** when that happened I wanted to counter sue for my $5000 legal bill but my attorney said best forget it and move on.
Runnerguy
Your contractual limitation of liability may work with your client, but if somebody else gets sued based on your info, they may be able to sue you as a third party with no limitation of liability.
Example - you design for homeowner. You miss a beam size and the window falls out and hits somebody in the head. They sue homeowner, builder and you. Your contract is with the homeowner, so liability is limited there, but there's no limitation to the injured plaintiff or to the builder who got sued because of the erroneous drawing.
Glad you do good work and don't get sued. Unfortunately, it's getting to be a fact of life these days.
FWIW, I've represented clients that had no money and could go bankrupt at any time, and being poor has worked to their benefit every time. Kind of sad actually.
Don K.
EJG Homes Renovations - New Construction - Rentals
I think at the end of the day you'd be right but there is a bunch of legal mumbo jumbo in there relating to the client holding me harmless against any suit by the contractor or a third party.
Fortunatly I've never had that tested but knowing how things work, I'd still probably be involved.
Runnerguy
FWIW, I've represented clients that had no money and could go bankrupt at any time, and being poor has worked to their benefit every time. Kind of sad actually.
Which gets into the dicier area of the liability of "designers" who generally have no specific liability.
What I was told, was that, unless there is a specific liability, then the liability for defects of design, regardless of the designer's qualifications, was the life of the building. (Note, not the life of the designer, or the designer's company or companies.) Against that, a designer only needs be better than the generally recognized two worst similarly qualified designers in their geographic area of practice.
Now, for far too many archy offices, the only asset they really have is debt. A truly damaged client will have little solace in out-of-date Sweet's catalogs and a couple of wall of carpet and plastic laminate samples. Which means the only real protection a client has is from one or more insurance companies (they have money, scads of it).
It always surprises me that anyone accepts the standard aia contract for commercial work let alone residential.Occupational hazard of my occupation not being around (sorry Bubba)
I'm a roofing/guttering/sheetmetal sub contractor. Six GC's provide probably 75% of my business. Three of them are design/build firms. All three of these D/B firms have or are run by architects. All three are excellent, but definitely have their own styles. I second the notion that you need to find a firm that's on the same train as you are. Good Luck.
http://grantlogan.net/
"he ot the placed closed down whyyy thhhattt nnooo gooodddd" - sancho
I know architects who I wouldn't trust to design a doghouse and building designers who have a great feel for space.
And I've found the reverse to be true too.
The key is you need to find somebody who understands costs but is VERY creative. A tough task.
Most "design/build" builders, while having a good handle on costs, really are not creative at all. They'll sit there and listen to you and draw up basically your solution. It's the "I give them what they want" mentality......."The Mrs. and I where thinking about a 12'X14' rooom with a bathroom over here" and PRESTO that's what the guy "designs". What are the odds??
No, "How about if we put the bath over here? We get a better entry to the bedooom and the bath is closer to the existing plumbing" stuff sketched out and it's very difficult to evaluate solutions without comparing it to alternatives.
You just need to find that right person who understands residential construction and their costs but is well, creative.
Runner Guy
PS: FWIW I'm a registered architect but have been building houses for 20 years. Make a decent side income going to peoples houses with "bumwad" in hand to figure out a solution to their addition problems in about 3 hours over their dining room table. I never build any of this stuff however, I just do whole houses but I know costs to a tee.
My only question is: what if I find him, and he's too busy to do my project? Or, who will build everybody else's house??You are a rarity in your profession.
Like finding anybody that's good at what they do (like a mechanic or accountant) it's a #### shoot. Best maybe to get someone via word of mouth if that's possible.
runnerguy