CA for future home builder/owner

[RMorrison]

Feel free to read the client testimonials on my website

Richard:

we can all say that

Lew

I don't think Perry can say that in good conscience, because I can't even find his website. In fact, I can't even find P.H. Designs LLC listed as an actual limited liability company with the California Sec. of State. Maybe Perry can clarify.

[perryh]

Never had a web site , never needed one. I have plenty of work and more work is something I don't want. As for the llc , I have been paying taxes for many years, so I'm not sure what your problem is. Now you act like a child.

[lbuttery]

Richard:

point conceded

I'll change it to "most of us can say that"

Lew

[johnnyprc]

I would sooner tell someone to proceed building themselves (as their own contractor), but have an architect, then to have a builder/contractor but no architect. A good set of prints that can be followed by any qualified subcontractor. Although I will add that this is a sticky position for an architect to do in Washington State. Many states want to try and make the architect the contractor (prime) if they are too involved in the project - answering questions onsite with the subs. The architect needs to follow the local law and place a steel curtin between the subs and himself, making sure he goes through the owner. I learned this the tough way, just how picky they are.

[perryh]

Richard, Checked, it's there, you just have to Spell it right with caps P H Designs LLC make sure your spaces are correct also

[RMorrison]

Richard, Checked, it's there, you just have to Spell it right with caps P H Designs LLC make sure your spaces are correct also

Yes, it is. Apparently, the official entity doesn't have periods in its name, the way you have it spelled here. My apologies.

[perryh]

Richard ,No problem. To be honest, I forgot exactly how I did it, it was so long ago.

[johnnyprc]

Not to break this discussion down further, but the idea of being a good "designer" is often met with the realities of construction methods - and then costs. The architect typically has been trained in "good composition" as to what makes a pleasing design, but its the ability to design according to a budget - knowing the methods and estimated costs to complete the design - which makes the architect far better qualified than just a "designer". The architect isn't an engineer, but its a happy middle between designer and engineer.

Architects over design too, but the home of an architect will always carry better composition in my opinion.

[perryh]

Johnny, don't you think anyone can learn costs. I design to a budget every day. The contractor always knows costs better than just about everyone else because he deals with it every day.

[keithhe]

I'm thinking I'm sorry I brought this thread out of retirement.

The OP said the following in post #1: "I know it depends on the state...but we will be building in the country (outside of any cities) will i have to have an engineer and achitect look over all prints? If so do you think it will be a problem finding someone to approve the entire design from a finished aspect? Or would i need to involve that person during the ground up phases?"

My opinion, AND only my opinion, is that given the criteria he put out there that some on here were simply trying to get him to run the other way. Given his multi year plan to work the design, layouts, and then consult engineer AND architect, I see nothing wrong with the idea. If it's crap, the EOR AND/OR engineer would correct it, but would have a very good strating point from where to proceed. You know, versus designing from the faucet up, which is admittedly harder and undoubtly more expensive.

It may never be up to some on this forums high standards, but if it works for the OP, then it works for the OP. Why discourage the attempt? Give advice, like, "do what you can , then have an engineer minimally and perhaps an architect work it over". Then leave it at that.

Somtimes it just gets too nasty here, on what should simply be a support forum. If you have an answer on a thread, and choose to share it, terrific, if not, move to the next thread. If your answer is condescending and negative, move on to the next thread.

Richard, with all due respect, you started your comment with this: "Johnnyprc, I have now given up getting sucked into these discussions." Then you got sucked in.

This is not an architect versus designer, versus contractor versus engineer forum. I know many, many fine examples of each, and have a lot of regard and respect for each.

[lbuttery]

Given his multi year plan to work the design, layouts, and then consult engineer AND architect, I see nothing wrong with the idea.

Keith:

just for the record - some architects refuse to look at a clients plans or plans from the internet etc
"it ruins their creativity" ....

I used to belong to the AIA in Wash. DC as an associate member
they offer a monthly class "how to work with an architect"
I attended a few - for the education

The Architect(s) made it quite clear that low-end residential projects would not be worth his time
(this was before 2008)

so what is a homeowner suppose to do at that point?
they seek out a designer or a design-build contractor

I do like the Kohler commercial where the clients hand the "famous" architect a faucet
and say "can you build a house around this?"

Lew

[johnnyprc]

Perry: I do think anyone can learn costs. I think there are designers out there that are better than most architects. Look at the "designer" who worked as a naval architect and designed Steve Job's mega yacht - inside and out. He was not an architect or naval architect. He got paid $10m for his services, so Jobs picked him over other naval architects and wasn't looking for a "budget deal".

In the world of infinite possibilities I sometimes speak to the "norm". I've seen way more "designers" who don't know what they are doing than do. In exact oposite, I say more architects know what they are doing than don't. Everything else is in the middle, and though possible, not as probable. "there is an exeption to every rule, but it doesn't change the rule"

[johnnyprc]

Lew:
Some architects are like that - mostly since commercial jobs do pay much better. Seriously, I find residential homes to be more work than a commercial project many times - yet we get maybe 25% the fee. Key for architects doing residential is to have good draftsman. Also, the marketing for getting residential clients is much easier. I personally do 80% residential and 20% commercial.

That is why I commented on architects who bully their clients. Stay away from those.

[keithhe]

Lew,

I agree, I have met all types of professionals that choose, for whatever reason, to not want to deal with the so-called "Harry Homeowner" projects. Admittedly, I'm in that very position now with a "possible" client that started out doing an addition, no plans, no permits, no skill whatsover. It is shelled out already. I went to look at it, and what a mess. No foundation to speak of, structurally a house of cards......primarily with respect to all point loads. Really bad. I made it clear that if I choose to do it, it would be all legal, and that would start with tearing down what they have done, to date. I'm not at all sure yet if I will accept though. I want to help, they are very nice people, just one of those can of worm things.

Johnny, I think I agree with you as well. There are a lot of different people doing some part of the residential building and design. I truely think there is room and a niche for a variety within that work process. Not just a single path. I find examples of every trade that are both good and bad, some even awful and incompetent. Mostly in the middle though and that would be expected.

[RMorrison]

Regarding costs, an oldie but goodie: http://www.chieftalk.com/showthread.php?26333 I have a post at #90 that states my opinion regarding architects and costs. However, the whole thread, long as it is, has lots of good information and opinions, and represents this board at its finest.

To Keith. Yes, there are lots of talented architects & designers on this forum. However, the OP was proposing to design the whole thing first, and THEN take it to an architect & engineer. The reason to be discouraging about this is that the OP will end up with something far less wonderful, and likely far less valuable, for the same price than if they had gone to a good professional to start with. This notion that ANYBODY can design well with absolutely no training, just because they have a copy of Chief Architect, carries as much validity as saying that anybody can do accurate medical diagnoses if they have a copy of the The Merck Manuals, or win a legal trial by owning a copy of the Witkin Treatises. Actually, what they can do with Chief Architect is make amateurish mistakes far faster than they ever could before, and then have their neighbors live with the results of their hubris for a very long time.

This is not to suggest that clients shouldn't be actively involved in their projects, but straightening out a client's dysfunctional rat maze after they've slaved over it for a couple of years is extremely difficult. (In fact, one of the big hurdles that beginning architectural students have to get over is the "preciousness" of their first design attempts. Some do this better than others.) Yes, Americans may have the legal right to build an ugly rat maze of their own design, but counseling a complete novice to just "go for it" is ill-advised, IMO.