Using an architect vs. using a "designer" who has taken architecture classes.

[Carrots]

Long story short on the background:
My brother and SIL are doing a large 2nd floor renovation to their house. They hired a "designer", recommended by the contractor, to draw up the plans for the addition (dormers, moving staircase, adding a master bath).

Yesterday, the contractor notified them they would have to change the design of the dormers, which were originally called "doghouse dormers", to flat roof dormers because there wasn't enough head-room for the pointed dormers on the existing roof (they would have to lift the entire roof to fit the original design). One dormer went up and it looks OK, but it doesn't match the style of the house.

Here is my issue:

DH and I are about renovate a 2nd floor bedroom, by adding dormers and a full bath to make a master suite. We hired an actual architect to draw up our plans (we haven't seen them yet). In our initial meeting, I emphasized my concern about keeping the addition aesthetically pleasing from the outside and to stay within the style of our home.

Since we hired an actual architect, I assume we are lowering our chances of having a drastic design change in the middle of construction. Am I right?

The architect is coming on Wednesday to show us the plans. I will absolutely ask him about my concerns, but I wanted to toss it out here to see if anyone can help me.

Thanks!

[niccig]

I would expect an architect to consider all of this...but you could still have changes...eg. as you go, you find something that no one knew was in the walls and now it throws the design off a bit.

And you could still get someone who isn't good at their job, like in any field.

BUT, I would be POed if I was your SIL/BIL that enough head room wasn't taken into account. We had friends, who went the route of using a friend who was an architecture student, and they had all manner of issues with planned things not meeting local codes etc. We need to do some work on our house, and I do not want that experience. DH keeps telling me that we won't have that, as we'll work with architect and contractor that has good references, knows about all of this....and then me the librarian says I'll also look up local building code to make sure!

So I would do your due diligence on the architect etc...get lots of references, ask lots of questions etc

[amldaley]

For the money, I would have to think that for anything that effects the structural integrity of the home, I would want an architect. I do think you run less risk of changes.

Keep in mind, too though, that when they make initial assessments, the go off what a building standard is or should be. But it seems more and more, builders are doing non-standard stuff. We had this issue with skylights. The contractor was sure this standard size would fit based on the traditional construction dimensions. He went up the day before he ordered them to measure and found our roof was totally non-standard, offset gables or something or other and the only thing that would fit would be a solar tube. Totally changed all the plans. Changes are not 100% preventable.

[khm]

My work used an architect for an office renovation. There were still issues. Lots of things that worked "on paper" for the architect but just weren't possible in reality. The architect just plain missed a few things in his "as built" measurements and elevations, too.

After you have the plans from the architect, I'd go over any major "must haves" with a contractor to see if he has any issues or concerns.

Architects and contractors should speak the same language, but that isn't always the case. :)

[marge234]

We were disappointed with the architect we used for an addition. The ONLY thing she did was ensure it was consistent with the outside of the house. She was supposed to act as our liaison with the contractor--we paid more for this--but she picked silly fights and I ended up running interference between the two of them in order to get the job done.

We got a lemon.

I really regret not asking the contractors who bid on the job for feedback on the plans--outside her presence. Contractors try not to bust the architects for lame plans because they want referrals. When our contractor's relationship went bad, I got dirt on the screw ups that I didn't figure out for myself. I couldn't tell she'd done the bare minimum with the drawings, and didn't have measurements right.

A few items:

The pitch of the roof had to be changed because she didn't consider a large tree branch.

She didn't specify the grade of wood to be used so the contractor used the cheapest. It looks it.

She drew things that weren't readily available (odd sized columns, door, lighting fixtures).

Anyway, I thought we were eliminating problems and doing the smart thing getting an architect--and this woman is well known in our town, serves on a zoning type board, etc...--but you still have to be very hands on.

[AnnieW625]

I would hire an architect, but if your brother and SIL were okay with the designer and their contractor is okay with that then I would say that is fine too. Feedback is the key IMHO and in both situations you can get good or bad feedback.

[crazydiamond]

From my own lessons learned.

The person should have an architectural license and carry professional liability insurance. As for copies of both

Renovations/additions are messy - so many unknown conditions buried inside walls, floors, ceilings. What ever bid you get - carry at least 10-20 percent in contingency (unknowns) money.

It is hard to find a good architect or builder. Ask around town. Try calling your local building department and ask if they know any reputable architects or builders in town. They are not allowed to officially recommend someone, but they know who does good work.

Consider hiring your own licensed home inspector - rather than the architect for construction services. Many people use a home inspector before they buy a home. But these inspectors can also be used as your own construction inspector from beginning of design to end of construction. A third party who is not tied to the designer or the builder and is giving you independent reviews and advice. Bid them when you are bidding your contractor.

[SkyrMommy]

We were lucky when we did our addition in that the local architect we hired had extensive code experience with our town and had worked with our builder before. We were able to tie the addition in to the existing house with no problems and the few things that came up with the building inspector was quickly resolved and didn't require too many changes. I would hope that an architect has additional engineering qualifications that a designer may not have.

[shilo]

this is exactly why i sought out a 'design/build' team for our build. (to clarify the 'design' part was done by a lic. architect). but basically, IME, this meant that they worked together from day one... the initial design meetings thru building to ensure that what was on paper was actually buildable in scope, budget, aesthetics, code and permitting. just b/c something is engineerable does not ensure that it meets your jurisdiction's codes, nor does it ensure that the planning and permitting departments will actually approve it (even if it does meet code). most architects that work solo will claim to have a knowledge about the local codes, permitting and inspection pieces for the cities in the areas they serve, but frankly, after having watched so many friends and family projects encounter minor to major hurdles at this step, it's definitely something you want to be totally on top of. it's the builder who will be the one in the city planning and permitting departments getting your approvals, and the builder who will be responsible to the inspector when the time comes. so basically, yes, emphasize this with your architect. but then go the next step further. have the builder your considering working with take your plans to the city to get provisional approvals. if the city is going to require revisions, you want to know this sooner than later obviously. it's fair to ask your architect what their policy is on revisions... ie. if the plans are rejected by the planning department on a design issue, you'll probably be responsible for the additional hourly fees to revise the plans. but if the city rejects them for not meeting code, i'd be making sure it was in my contract with the architect that those revisions are done at their expense. do not let anyone break ground or into your roof before everything from the engineering to the elevations have been signed off on by your jurisdiction so that you have some recourse. it's so tempting to just 'get going' on your project once the design is done. but don't rush that middle step of making sure it's actually buildable both in scope/cost as well as per city code (which is what it sounds like happened to your BIL and SIL).

[ladysoapmaker]

Another thing to consider, is in many jurisdictions they require a Professional Engineer to sign off on the plans because they are the ones who will actually make sure the structural integrity is there and that the wiring plan is up to code, etc. PEs can do the design but I have found they generally don't do aesthetics, that's were the designer/architect comes in.

Good Luck,
Jen

[ShanaMama]

I would expect an architect to consider all of this...but you could still have changes...eg. as you go, you find something that no one knew was in the walls and now it throws the design off a bit.

And you could still get someone who isn't good at their job, like in any field.

BUT, I would be POed if I was your SIL/BIL that enough head room wasn't taken into account. We had friends, who went the route of using a friend who was an architecture student, and they had all manner of issues with planned things not meeting local codes etc. We need to do some work on our house, and I do not want that experience. DH keeps telling me that we won't have that, as we'll work with architect and contractor that has good references, knows about all of this....and then me the librarian says I'll also look up local building code to make sure!

So I would do your due diligence on the architect etc...get lots of references, ask lots of questions etc
OP, my DH is a contractor & I think what happened to your BIL is unacceptable. DH ensures that all measurements are taken before the plan even goes for approval. I can't understand how the contractor missed that. DH does a bit of layout design in his capacity but I am pretty sure almost every house has an architect involved. Occasionally they need to work changes into the plan based on planning board requirements but I think DH can usually anticipate their requests. A major structural or design change really shouldn't come up during the actual construction. FWIW, DH doesn't do renovations, only new construction. Among DH's friends in the industry renovations are known as a big pain, probably because of all the unexpected issues that inevitably come up.
Like a pp said, for certain projects an engineer has to sign off as well to ensure safety. There was a local story where the builder or architect cut corners on a commercial building (I'm not sure if it was a misunderstanding or intentional) and on opening day the floor collapsed because it couldn't hold up the weight of the crowd at the opening ceremony (more than a typical day's crowd).