Why Two Architects' Fees Can Look So Different for the Same Project

If you talk to a handful of architects about the same project, you'll likely get a handful of different numbers, sometimes wildly different ones. It's tempting to assume the higher number reflects more talent, or the lower number reflects a better deal. In my experience, the real explanation is almost always simpler than that: the fees differ because the services differ.

Services, Not Talent, Drive the Number

Two architects can both tell you they'll "design your kitchen," and mean two completely different things by it. One version might be a basic floor plan layout with cabinetry shown in a simple elevation, nothing more. Another version might include full millwork details, material and hardware specifications, coordination of recessed and pendant lighting, plumbing fixture selection, sourcing trips with the client, and renderings to visualize the final result before it's built. Both of those are legitimately "kitchen design," and they are not remotely the same amount of work.

That same gap in scope shows up across an entire project, not just in one room. Whether an architect provides full construction documents or a bare-bones permit set, whether construction administration is included or left out entirely, whether interior selections are part of the service or something you're expected to handle separately, all of that adds up, and it's almost always the real reason one proposal costs meaningfully more or less than another.

Notoriety plays a role too, if you're hiring a well-known name, you're paying a premium tied to demand rather than necessarily to a difference in the underlying work. But for most residential projects, the services included in the fee explain the gap far more than anything else.

Roughly How Work Breaks Down Across a Project

It's worth having a general sense of how much effort goes into each phase of a project, since that shapes both fixed fee milestones and how hourly billing tends to land over time. Speaking roughly, and this will vary by project and by architect, schematic design tends to represent around 23 percent of the total work. Design development represents another 23 percent. Construction documents, the most detailed and technical phase, typically represents the largest share, around 33 percent. Construction administration rounds it out at roughly 23 percent.

Those numbers won't add up to a clean 100 percent, and that's fine, they're meant as a general guide rather than a precise formula. But understanding roughly where the effort concentrates helps explain why construction documents so often carry the largest portion of a fixed fee, and why cutting corners on that phase in particular tends to cause problems downstream during actual construction.

A Reasonable Range to Expect

For custom residential work, architecture fees, however they're structured, generally land somewhere between 10 and 20 percent of construction cost when you look at the total relative to project size. Ten percent tends to be closer to a baseline, and fees toward the higher end of that range usually reflect a more comprehensive scope of services, a larger and more experienced team, or both. The specific project scale matters too, a larger project usually settles toward a lower percentage than a smaller one, simply due to economy of scale.

What Actually Matters Most

At the end of the day, I don't think fee structure should be the deciding factor in who you hire. If you're comparing architects and you genuinely trust one of them more, that should outweigh a modest difference in their fee or even a difference in how that fee is structured. A project like this is a long relationship, often spanning years from first sketch to move-in, and that trust matters more than optimizing for a slightly lower number.

What I'd encourage instead is asking direct questions before you sign anything. Ask exactly what's included in the proposed fee and what would fall outside it as an additional service. Ask whether construction administration and full construction documents are part of the scope. Ask how interior selections are handled. Once you understand what you're actually being offered, comparing architects becomes a much more honest exercise, and the fee itself tends to make a lot more sense.

Hourly and Hybrid Fees: When They Make More Sense Than a Flat Number

Hourly is one of the more common fee structures I see, and in some ways it might be the fairest one available. You're paying for the actual time spent on your project, nothing more and nothing less. If a decision comes together quickly, you pay for the time that took. If a detail turns out to be more complicated than expected, that gets reflected honestly too, rather than being absorbed silently into a number that was fixed months earlier.

Why Hourly Can Work in Your Favor

A client who makes decisions quickly, who doesn't need to see a dozen design options before committing to a direction, can genuinely spend less under an hourly structure than they would under a fixed fee built around a more open-ended, iterative process. The contract itself also tends to be simpler, since there's no need to define an exhaustive list of what's included and excluded. The rate is the rate, and the time spent is the time spent.

Hourly billing also removes a certain kind of friction that can creep into fixed fee relationships. There's no gray area to negotiate about whether an extra site visit or a bit of research outside the normal scope counts as an "additional service." If it needs to happen, it happens, and it gets billed for the time it took. That flexibility benefits the client as much as the architect.

The Real Downside

The obvious tradeoff is unpredictability. Because the increments are small, hour by hour, it's harder to know at the outset what the total will end up being. A responsible architect working hourly should still be able to give you a ballpark range, usually informed by the same percentage-of-construction-cost benchmarks used across the industry, and should keep you updated as the project moves along so you have a sense of where you stand relative to that estimate. If an architect can't offer any range at all, that's usually a sign they haven't thought through the scope of the project carefully enough themselves.

It's also worth being honest about the psychology of hourly billing. The phases that most often end up hourly, even within an otherwise fixed fee agreement, are the ones that are hardest to predict: early design work, where you're still getting to know how a client makes decisions, and construction administration, where the unknowns of a specific contractor, a specific site, and a specific set of field conditions make the amount of back-and-forth genuinely hard to estimate in advance.

There's a real danger worth naming here too. As a project moves further into construction and costs start climbing, it's not uncommon for clients on an hourly model to start looking for places to cut back, and construction administration is often the first thing on the chopping block. That's a mistake. It's exactly the phase where having an architect involved protects the design intent and catches problems before they become expensive to fix.

The Case for a Hybrid Approach

A hybrid fee structure tries to take the best of both models by matching the fee type to how predictable each phase of the work actually is. Construction documents, for example, are usually the most quantifiable phase, once the design is settled, producing a full set of construction documents is largely technical, well-understood work, which makes it a natural fit for a fixed fee even within an otherwise hourly arrangement. Construction administration, on the other hand, depends heavily on variables the architect doesn't control, like how experienced or organized the contractor turns out to be, which makes it a better fit for hourly billing even within an otherwise fixed fee agreement.

This isn't just a theoretical benefit for the architect. It gives a client a fixed number for the phase that's genuinely predictable, so there's real cost certainty where certainty is possible, while still allowing flexibility in the phase where locking in a number upfront would require padding the estimate to cover the unknowns. Done well, a hybrid structure ends up feeling fair to both sides rather than favoring one over the other.

What to Take Away From This

Neither hourly nor hybrid is inherently better than a straight fixed fee, they simply distribute risk and predictability differently. If you tend to prefer knowing an exact number and staying within it, hourly billing may make you uneasy regardless of how well it's managed. If you'd rather pay for exactly the time something took and trust that the process will be handled honestly, a fixed number might feel unnecessarily rigid. Knowing which one fits how you actually think about money and decision-making is worth more than debating the structures in the abstract.

In the final post of this series, I'll get into why two architects can quote genuinely different total fees for what looks on paper like the same project, and roughly how much work happens in each phase of a typical project from first sketch to move-in.

What a Fixed Fee Really Covers, and What It Doesn't

Fixed fee, sometimes called lump sum, is probably the most common fee structure I see architects using today, and it's easy to understand why it's appealing. You know from the outset roughly what your project will cost and roughly what your architect will cost. For a client trying to plan a budget and keep control over spending, that predictability is genuinely valuable.

But a fixed fee doesn't automatically mean you're getting everything. That's the part that trips people up, and it's the single most important thing to understand if you're comparing fixed fee proposals from more than one architect.

The Same Number Can Mean Very Different Things

A low fixed fee sounds appealing on its face, but a fixed fee is only ever a number attached to a defined scope of services. Two architects can both quote a "fixed fee" for your project, and if their scopes are different, you're not actually comparing the same thing.

The two phases that most often get quietly reduced or dropped entirely from a fixed fee are construction documents and construction administration. I've seen permit sets that run ten pages with only four actual lines of information on them, technically a set of drawings, but nowhere near enough detail for a contractor in the field to know what to build without constant guesswork. When an architect's fixed fee only carries a project through permit drawings like that, you're paying for maybe half the actual work a project needs, even though the number on paper looked reasonable.

Construction administration gets cut for a similar reason. It's the phase where the architect stays involved during construction itself, visiting the site, answering the contractor's questions, and making sure what's being built actually matches the design intent. It's easy for that phase to get left out of a "cheaper" fixed fee, and it's also one of the first things clients get tempted to cut later if a project starts running over budget, which is a mistake I'd caution strongly against.

What I Include at Tight House

When I do offer a fixed fee, I build it to include construction administration, full construction documents, and interior selections, not just a stripped-down permit set. I think that's the right way to do it, because a project that only gets you to permit and then hands you off leaves too much unresolved for the contractor and, ultimately, for you as the client. If I'm quoting a fixed number, that number reflects the full scope of getting your project built the way it was designed, not just getting it approved on paper.

This is also why comparing fixed fee proposals purely by the bottom line rarely tells you much. If one architect's fee is notably lower than another's for what looks like the same project, the difference almost always comes down to what's actually included, not some architect being cheap for the sake of being cheap or expensive for the sake of being expensive.

Know the Limits Before You Sign

A fixed fee contract also has to spell out limits, because unlike an hourly arrangement, the architect needs to define upfront how many design options you'll see, how many rounds of revisions are included, and what happens once you go beyond that. That's not a bad thing, but it does mean you should understand those limits before signing. If you know you tend to want to see a lot of options or go back and forth extensively before settling on a direction, it's worth having that conversation early, because anything beyond what's defined in the contract becomes an additional service, billed separately.

None of this is meant to make additional services sound like a trap. It's simply the tradeoff that comes with a model built around predictability. In exchange for knowing your number upfront, both you and your architect agree to a defined scope, and staying mature about what falls inside versus outside that scope makes for a much smoother working relationship than being surprised by it later.

In the next post, I'll walk through hourly and hybrid fee structures, where the tradeoffs run in the opposite direction, and why a hybrid approach often makes the most sense for the least predictable parts of a project.

Percentage of Construction Cost: The Original Fee Model (and Why It's Fading)

When people ask how architects charge for their work, the model that usually comes up first, even today, is percentage of construction cost. It's the fee structure most associated with the profession historically, and it's worth understanding even though I'd argue it's become far less common over the last fifteen years or so.

How It Works

The idea is straightforward. Construction cost covers the materials, the labor, and the contractor's overhead and profit, essentially everything it takes to actually build the project. The architect's fee is then set as a percentage of that number. If the project ends up costing more to build, whether because of scope changes, material upgrades, or just the realities of construction pricing, the architect's fee moves up with it. If it comes in lower, the fee comes down too.

For residential work on a custom home built for an end user rather than a developer spec house, that percentage typically falls somewhere between 10 and 20 percent of construction cost. That's a wide range, and where a given project lands within it depends heavily on scale. A larger project usually settles toward a lower percentage than a smaller one, simply because of economy of scale.

Why This Model Made Sense

The logic behind percentage of construction cost holds up reasonably well when you think about complexity. Two houses can be the same square footage, same number of bedrooms and bathrooms, same general program, and still take four times as long to design and build depending on how custom the details are. A house with resolved steel connections, custom millwork, and complicated technical details requires more collaboration between architect, contractor, engineer, and fabricator to solve. That additional complexity tends to drive construction costs up, and a percentage-based fee scales naturally with that added effort.

Where It Breaks Down

The most common criticism of this model is the appearance of a conflict of interest. If an architect's fee grows alongside construction cost, a client could reasonably wonder whether the architect is incentivized to specify more expensive materials or more complicated details than necessary. In practice, I don't think most architects are out there intentionally inflating scope to pad their fee, but the perception itself is real, and it's part of why this model has lost favor.

There's also a fairness problem buried in the details. Drawing and specifying a kitchen countertop takes roughly the same amount of work whether that countertop is a mid-range quartz or an imported Italian marble slab costing several times more. If the fee is a straight percentage of construction cost, the architect ends up earning significantly more for materials selection work that didn't actually require significantly more effort. Some architects try to solve this by capping the percentage on certain material categories, but that gets complicated fast, especially across an entire project rather than one isolated scope.

Architects also don't control construction pricing. Market conditions shift, and a contractor's own efficiency, or lack of it, directly affects the final construction cost without the architect having any say in it. That's a strange position to be tied to financially. Some contracts try to address this with language requiring the fee to be based on "market rate" construction cost, but in practice that's genuinely hard to define and even harder to enforce, especially if a client happens to have a contractor connection who can build well below typical market pricing.

Where This Model Still Shows Up

Even architects who don't formally structure their fee this way often use percentage of construction cost internally, as a benchmark to sanity-check a fixed fee or an hourly estimate. It's also just the language most people default to in casual conversation, because it's the easiest way to describe fee scale relative to project size, even when the actual contract is structured differently.

I recently spoke with an architect colleague who still works this way directly, with an interesting twist. He charges a percentage of construction cost, but only once the project crosses a certain cost threshold. Below that threshold, he has a minimum base fee, essentially a floor that says, regardless of how modest the construction cost is, this is what it takes for me to do this project properly. Once the project grows past that point, the fee transitions into a straight percentage. It's one reasonable way to keep the benefits of a scaling fee while protecting against being underpaid on a smaller, still labor-intensive project.

What This Means If You're Comparing Architects

If an architect quotes their fee as a percentage of construction cost, or references that percentage even while working under a different fee structure, it's worth asking directly whether that's actually how their fee is calculated, or whether it's just the shorthand they're using to describe it. Those are two different things, and understanding which one you're actually agreeing to matters more than the percentage number itself.

In the next post in this series, I'll get into the fixed fee model, which has become the more common structure today, and why a low fixed fee number can sometimes hide more than it reveals.

How to Actually Vet an Architect

Most homeowners evaluate architects the way they'd evaluate any other big purchase: years in practice, portfolio, how the proposal price compares to two or three others. Those things matter, but I'd argue the conversation you have with an architect before you ever sign anything tells you more about what working together will actually be like than any of that.

Listen for What They're Not Saying

A well-run project depends on things that have nothing to do with style: structural coordination, sequencing, clear communication with the other five or six consultants involved, and a process for actually making decisions instead of guessing at them. If an architect glosses over that in conversation, or never brings it up at all, that's telling you something. It's easy to assume every architect handles coordination and process the same way behind the scenes. They don't, and the ones who are genuinely doing that work tend to talk about it, because it's central to how they operate.

I'd also pay attention to how an architect responds when you or anyone else starts throwing out design ideas too early, on a site visit or in a first conversation. There's an instinct in this industry to sound confident and decisive on the spot, and a lot of architects lean into it because it feels reassuring to a client. But good design decisions come from reflection, not improvisation. The strongest architects I know are more like the quiet kid in class who's actually listening rather than the one constantly volunteering answers. If someone is proposing a fully formed design solution to you in the first five minutes, before they've seen a survey or understood your budget, that's worth being a little skeptical of.

Customer Service Is Not a Lesser Skill

There's a persistent idea in this profession that customer service is somehow beneath architecture, that it's the domain of retail and hospitality, not design. I think that framing gets it backwards. A residential project can run one to three years and involves an enormous amount of coordination between you, the architect, engineers, and a contractor. If an architect can't communicate clearly and professionally with you as a prospective client, it's fair to assume they're not going to communicate any better with the dozen or more other people they'll need to coordinate throughout your project. Being a talented designer and being a functioning architect are not the same thing. You need both.

Fit Matters, and It's Worth Naming

Personality fit is real, and it's worth thinking about honestly rather than assuming it'll sort itself out. People generally work best with people who communicate the way they do. If you're a fast-moving, detail-hungry person and the architect you're speaking with is slow to engage or vague about process, that friction is unlikely to disappear once the contract is signed. None of this means an architect needs to match your personality exactly, a good architect should be able to adapt their communication style to different clients, but it's worth noticing during that first call whether the way someone explains things actually works for how you think.

Comparing Proposals the Right Way

When it comes to comparing proposals, price alone is a poor way to choose. If one architect's fee is noticeably lower than the others you're considering, ask yourself what's being left out rather than assuming you found a better deal. Architecture fees are, for the most part, a reflection of scope. A lower number usually means less is included, not that you got lucky. Whatever isn't included at the proposal stage has a way of resurfacing later as a change order, once it becomes clear the work still needs to happen and someone still has to do it.

The most useful thing you can do when comparing multiple architects is make sure you're actually comparing the same scope of work across each proposal, not just the bottom-line number. Ask each architect directly what phases and services are included, from initial concept through construction. It's easy to assume that if one architect provides a service, they all do. They don't, and the differences are often significant enough to explain most of the price gap you're seeing.

What the Conversation Itself Tells You

Ultimately, the quality of your first conversation with an architect is a reasonable preview of what working with them will be like for the next year or two. If it's brief and transactional, that's probably reflective of the level of service you'll get. If the person you're speaking with takes real time to explain their thinking, asks you thoughtful questions, and is upfront about tradeoffs rather than just telling you what you want to hear, that's a meaningful signal too.

Good design matters enormously, but design without the mechanics behind it, the coordination, the communication, the process for making decisions well, doesn't actually get built. When you're vetting an architect, you're not just evaluating their taste. You're evaluating whether they can actually deliver a project from a sketch to a finished home.

What to Prepare Before You Hire an Architect

A question I get constantly from prospective clients is what they can or should do before they officially sign with an architect. The honest answer depends on how holistic the architect's services are. In my practice, I act as the project manager and coordinator for the entire process, which means clients often come to me before they've even settled on a property. If you're working with an architect who offers a narrower scope, just design and permit drawings, there are still a handful of concrete things worth having ready.

The Groundwork You Can Start Gathering

A survey of the property is always going to be necessary. So is a zoning analysis, which some architects handle directly and others outsource to an expediter for more complex sites or dense municipalities. Depending on the project, you may also need a soils report, and if there are mature trees on the property, an arborist may need to inspect them.

Beyond that, gather whatever administrative records you can find: permit history, title reports, and especially any existing architectural drawings from a previous owner or architect. If you can track down the file from whoever worked on the house before you, that gives your new architect a real starting point instead of measuring everything from scratch.

Why You Should Still Talk to the Architect First

Here's the catch. Even though all of that can technically be done before an architect is onboarded, I'd always recommend talking to the architect first, or ideally bringing them on before you commission any of it. A basic example: not every surveyor produces a topographic survey with the same level of accuracy, and if your architect needs a specific type of precision for your site, a survey done by the wrong provider may not actually be usable. The same logic applies to structural drawings if you're renovating an existing home. You might need elevations and roof plans you wouldn't think to ask for on your own.

I've also seen the reverse happen, where a client requests a survey only for an interior scope, only for it to become clear in our first real conversation about their goals that they're also considering exterior changes down the line. If that's on the table at all, it changes what survey you need today, because redoing it later costs more than getting it right the first time. An architect who's engaged with your actual goals, not just your stated scope, can help you avoid paying for the wrong version of something you'll need anyway.

Getting Your Financing in Order

The other piece worth having ready before you start is a clear sense of your financing. Clients sometimes underestimate how much they'll need to pay out on a monthly basis once a project is underway, across the various consultants and contractors involved. Having your funds genuinely available, not just budgeted on paper, is what keeps a project moving once it starts.

Soft Cost vs. Hard Cost, and Why the Difference Matters

This is probably the single most common point of confusion I run into with new clients: the difference between soft cost and hard cost. When someone tells me they have a certain amount to spend, I always ask whether that figure represents construction cost or total project cost, because those are very different numbers.

Soft costs, meaning architecture fees, engineering, permitting, and other professional services, typically run somewhere between 15 and 25 percent of total project cost, sometimes more depending on the scope. So if someone comes to me with two million dollars total for a project, and that figure includes soft costs plus a reasonable construction contingency, their actual construction budget is going to be meaningfully lower than two million. That's a very different number to design around than if the full two million was earmarked for construction alone.

This single distinction is behind a lot of sticker shock later in the process. Getting clear on it early, before you've fallen in love with a scope of work that doesn't match your real construction budget, saves everyone time and disappointment.

The Bottom Line

None of what I've described here is design work. It's information gathering, and it's worth doing well before any real design thinking begins. Once an architect is engaged, the goal is to weave together your site, your program, your budget, and who you are as a client into a first cohesive direction, and that only works if the groundwork underneath it is solid. Getting these pieces in order before you sit down with an architect, or better yet, having that first conversation before you commission any of it, sets the whole project up to move faster and with fewer surprises later.

Should You Phase Your Home Renovation or Addition?

One of the questions I hear most often from clients is whether they can break a renovation or addition into pieces, doing part of the work now and the rest later. Maybe you just bought a house and need to make it livable before you can afford the addition you really want. Maybe you're not sure yet what you want out of a backyard structure until you've actually lived on the property for a while. Whatever the reason, phasing a project is almost always possible. The real question isn't whether you can do it, it's whether it makes sense for your specific situation.

The Easy Kind of Phasing

The simplest projects to phase are the ones where the scope is genuinely isolated. If you're renovating a kitchen and two bathrooms now and holding off on two more bathrooms for five years down the road, that's a clean split. The work doesn't overlap, and what happens later doesn't depend on decisions made now.

The same is true when a later phase is a completely detached structure with its own access to the site. An ADU, a pool house, a standalone addition (essentially new construction) you build after you've lived in the main house long enough to know what you actually want from your backyard. These are the low-risk versions of phasing, and I don't consider them a turnoff at all when a client brings them up.

Where It Gets Complicated

Phasing gets much harder when the work physically overlaps between phases. Think about adding a second story on top of a first floor you're also renovating. What you build now has to account for what will sit on top of it later, down to beam sizes and foundation capacity. Get that wrong and you're paying twice, once to build it and again to tear out and redo what you already paid for the first time.

This is the kind of decision that genuinely requires a general contractor and a structural engineer at the table early, not just the architect. A well-run project brings the full team in early regardless, but with phased work it stops being optional. Sequencing decisions like this depend on construction methods and structural details that only become clear once everyone who has to build it is actually in the conversation.

What Phasing Doesn't Save You

There's a common misconception that phasing saves money or time. It doesn't, at least not in the way people expect. Construction costs almost never go down, so whatever phase two costs in three or five years will include however much inflation and material cost increases happen between now and then. And phasing doesn't really save time either. You might move in faster, but you're also inviting a construction crew back into your home for a second disruptive stretch down the road.

Then there's mobilization. A meaningful part of what you pay a contractor covers getting a crew and their equipment out to the site, not just materials. The more work a trade can complete in a single visit, the better value you get. Splitting that same work across two separate mobilizations, sometimes years apart, adds cost that has nothing to do with the materials themselves.

There's also a craftsmanship question worth thinking about. If you're building an addition, you likely want the same team that built your home working on it, so materials and detailing age and match consistently. Split the project by five years and you may be looking at visibly different finishes, weathering, and quality between the two phases.

The Honest Question to Ask Yourself

If you're seriously considering phasing, the real question isn't about money or timeline. It's whether you're up for doing this twice. A phased project means going through the disruption, decision fatigue, and uncertainty of construction, then doing it again in a few years. Some clients handle a first renovation and are genuinely excited to do the next one. Others finish phase one and swear they'll never go through it again, which means phase two quietly never happens.

Before you commit to phasing, it's worth asking yourself honestly: do I actually want to go through construction again in a few years? Can I work from home during it? How long will each phase realistically take? Those aren't small questions, and they're worth discussing openly with whoever you're considering hiring, well before drawings ever get started.

The Bottom Line

Design decisions, structural coordination, and construction sequencing all have to work together for a phased project to succeed, and none of that happens by accident. It comes from a process built around getting the right people talking to each other early, thinking through the full vision even when only part of it gets built now, and being honest with yourself about what you're signing up for. That's true whether you're phasing a project or building it all at once, but phasing raises the stakes considerably.

If you're weighing whether to phase your own renovation or addition, I’m happy to talk it through with you before you commit to a direction. You can book a call here.

The Complete Guide to Residential Architecture Phases: What to Expect When Hiring an Architect

If you're planning a home renovation, addition, or new construction project, understanding the residential architecture process can save you time, money, and frustration. As a licensed architect who has guided dozens of homeowners through this journey, I've learned that clarity about what happens when makes all the difference.

The architecture and construction process typically unfolds across ten distinct phases. While every project is unique, these phases provide a roadmap for transforming your vision into a finished home. The first half focuses on design, while the second half centers on construction—though the split isn't always perfectly even.

Let me walk you through each phase so you know exactly what to expect.

Phase 1: Pre-Design (Programming & Analysis)

Before any design work begins, I need to understand the full picture of your project. Pre-design is essentially an analytical phase where I gather all the information necessary to create a meaningful design solution.

What happens during pre-design:

The pre-design phase establishes the foundation for everything that follows. I'll work with you to define your project budget, construction timeline, and scope. For a home, this means determining how many bedrooms and bathrooms you need, how you want to use living spaces, and what outdoor areas matter most to you.

I also analyze your property itself—not just aesthetically, but legally. What can you actually build on your lot given zoning ordinances, setback requirements, and lot coverage restrictions? How does sunlight move across your site throughout the day? Where are the opportunities and constraints?

Most importantly, pre-design is when I dig into why you're doing this project and what you want to achieve. Without truthful, accurate information about your goals and constraints, I can't design something appropriate for your needs. Think of it like visiting a doctor—treatment requires diagnosis first.

Phase 2: Concept Design (Design Direction)

Concept design can feel elusive because it's the most abstract phase of the process. Some architecture practices skip this as a formal step and fold it into schematic design, but when it does exist, it serves an important purpose.

Finding the central idea:

Every successful project needs a spine—a central concept that holds all the smaller design decisions together. Sometimes that concept comes directly from you. Maybe you're obsessed with natural light, or you want the home to feel like a modern interpretation of a traditional farmhouse. Other times, the concept emerges from the site itself—a stunning view, a heritage tree, or the way the property slopes.

Concept design deliverables vary widely but typically include abstract sketches, diagrams, reference images, and written descriptions. The goal is to establish a design direction before diving into the specifics of floor plans and elevations.

Phase 3: Schematic Design

Schematic design is where your project starts to take recognizable shape. This is the phase most clients find exciting because abstract ideas become actual architectural drawings.

What schematic design delivers:

During schematic design, I translate the conceptual direction into scaled drawings that show the building's size, form, and spatial relationships. These drawings are still somewhat "cartoony"—they're not construction-ready, but they give you a clear sense of what the building will look like.

I typically present two to three design options during this exploratory phase. You might see different approaches to laying out your primary suite, or various ways to configure the relationship between your kitchen and outdoor spaces. This is the time to explore alternatives before committing to a direction.

By the end of schematic design, your design is roughly 25% complete. You should have a clear architectural outline—the big gestures and major decisions are made. Think of it like sketching the outline on a canvas before you start painting.

A word of caution: Once you move past schematic design, you really don't want to backtrack. Going backward at this point means restarting the design process, which costs time and money. Make sure you're confident in the direction before we move forward.

Phase 4: Design Development

Design development represents a major jump forward. If schematic design was an outline, design development is writing the full story with complete sentences, paragraphs, and chapters.

What gets developed:

During design development, I refine the schematic design into something much more realistic. You'll know the exact size of windows, the precise dimensions of doors, how many steps your staircase needs, and where every plumbing fixture will be located.

This is also when your project team expands. Structural engineers, mechanical engineers, and other consultants join the effort. Everyone contributes drawings that overlay on top of each other so I can coordinate how each building system works together—where ducts run in relation to structural beams, how plumbing lines route through framed walls, and so on.

Design development takes longer than schematic design because there's substantially more work involved. You'll have several meetings where I present refinements based on your feedback, but unlike schematic design, these aren't radically different options. You've chosen the path; now I'm refining the details within that direction.

The 90% milestone:

By the end of design development, your design is 85-90% complete. Your building essentially exists as a three-dimensional model—everything is there, all windows, doors, and architectural components are defined. The remaining 10-15% of design decisions happen during the next phase.

Phase 5: Community Approvals (HOA/Condo Board)

If your property is subject to a homeowners association, condo board, or similar community oversight, you'll need their approval before proceeding. This step doesn't apply to every project, but when it does, timing matters.

Why this happens before construction documents:

Community boards care about aesthetics—what your project will look like from the street and how it affects the neighborhood character. They're not reviewing life safety issues or building code compliance; they're making sure your design fits community standards.

Getting approval as soon as the design is developed enough (usually after design development) prevents wasting time and money. You don't want to complete all your construction documents only to discover the board requires changes to your exterior materials or roof design.

The process typically involves getting approval signatures from adjacent neighbors and making a presentation to the board. As your architect, I handle this presentation so you don't have to navigate the politics yourself.

Phase 6: Construction Documentation

Construction documentation (often abbreviated as "CDs") is the longest phase of the design process. This is when I create the detailed technical drawings and specifications that contractors use to build your home.

Why CDs take so long:

While design development defined what your building looks like, construction documents explain how every component goes together. I'm essentially creating a comprehensive instruction manual for construction. Every wall base detail, every ceiling condition, every window flashing assembly gets documented.

The construction document set includes architectural drawings, schedules (think of these as spreadsheets listing every door, window, light fixture, and finish), and specifications (detailed product information for materials and equipment). Your structural engineer, mechanical engineer, and other consultants also contribute their drawings to this coordinated set.

Your role during CDs:

You'll be less involved during construction documentation than in earlier phases. This is technical work—deciding what type of insulation to use, how to flash windows, which sheathing materials meet code requirements. These aren't decisions that require your input; they're problems I need to solve based on my expertise.

That said, the final 10-15% of design decisions do happen during CDs. Small details about reveals, material transitions, and custom millwork get finalized. But the heavy lifting happens behind the scenes.

Phase 7: Permitting (Agency Approvals)

Before any construction can begin, you need a building permit from your local building department. This is a legal requirement for virtually any substantial residential project.

What permitting involves:

Building codes exist to ensure life safety—that your home can withstand local climate conditions, that you can safely exit during a fire, that structural systems are sound. The building department reviews a permit drawing set (which is different from your full construction document set) to verify code compliance.

I prepare the permit drawings, sign and seal them as a licensed architect, and submit them to the building department. A plan checker reviews them and typically sends back comments or required corrections. Very few permit sets get approved on the first submission—expect at least one round of revisions.

Timeline reality:

Permit review timelines vary dramatically by municipality. Some towns turn around reviews in two weeks; others take months. This is completely outside anyone's control, and different plan checkers at the same department can have different interpretations of code requirements.

Sometimes I submit for a permit while simultaneously advancing the construction documents. If I'm confident the design won't change dramatically, this parallel approach saves time. There's some calculated risk, but it can accelerate your timeline significantly.

Phase 8: Contractor Selection (Bidding)

If you don't already have a contractor, you'll need to select one. The construction document set is what contractors use to provide accurate pricing for your project.

The bidding process:

I typically recommend two to five contractors who I trust to do quality work. I coordinate a site visit so they can walk through your property (if it's a renovation) and review the drawings in detail. They have a few weeks to develop their bids, ask questions, and submit pricing—everyone submits on the same date to keep the process fair.

Once bids come in, I review them line by line with you. Why is one contractor higher than another? What's included or excluded? Are there alternates that could save money without compromising design quality? I help you understand what you're actually getting for the price.

Beyond the lowest bid:

Price matters, but it's not everything. You need a contractor you trust, who communicates clearly, whose craftsmanship matches your expectations, and whose schedule aligns with your timeline. I help evaluate these factors because I've seen their work and know their capabilities.

For residential projects specifically, a contractor who specializes in custom homes will have different skills than one who does spec work or commercial projects. Make sure the contractor's experience matches your project type.

Phase 9: Construction & Construction Administration

Finally, you break ground. Construction is when your home transforms from drawings into physical reality. My role during this phase is construction administration (often abbreviated as "CA").

What construction administration includes:

I make regular site visits—typically weekly, though the frequency depends on the project phase and complexity. During these visits, I observe construction progress, verify that work matches the design intent shown in the drawings, and address any questions the contractor has.

Construction always uncovers surprises, especially in renovation projects. When something unexpected comes up—an existing condition that wasn't visible until demolition, a dimensional conflict between two building systems, a material that's suddenly unavailable—I problem-solve in real time.

I also review shop drawings, which are detailed fabrication drawings produced by manufacturers and subcontractors. These show exactly how custom cabinetry, millwork, structural steel, or other specialized components will be built. I review them to ensure they match the design intent before fabrication begins.

Why CA matters:

Having your architect involved during construction protects your investment. Contractors aren't designers—when changes need to be made, you need someone thinking about design implications, not just construction logistics. Without architectural oversight, well-meaning contractors and homeowners often make decisions that compromise the design in ways that can't be undone.

Phase 10: Punch List, Final Walkthrough & Staging

As construction nears completion, the building reaches what's called "substantial completion"—safe and occupiable, but not quite finished. This triggers the punch list process.

Creating the punch list:

I walk through the entire project with you and the contractor, making a detailed list of everything that needs correction, repair, or finishing. A dent in a door, missing paint on trim, a fixture that's not working correctly—everything gets documented. The contractor returns to address every item on the list.

Once punch list items are complete, there's a final walkthrough. If everything looks good, the project is officially closed out and you can move in.

Furnishing and staging:

While this is listed as the final phase, furniture selection typically happens during construction. I don't wait until you have keys in hand to start selecting sofas and dining tables—lead times on quality furniture can be substantial.

During construction administration, while I'm managing site visits and shop drawing reviews, I'm also sourcing and specifying furniture. The goal is to have everything arrive around the time construction finishes so you can move right in.

For larger projects, furniture often ships to a warehouse for storage and inspection, then gets delivered and staged once the contractor's work is complete. I'm on site during staging to direct placement and ensure everything works together as designed.

The Architecture Process: Key Takeaways

Understanding these ten phases helps you know what to expect, when to expect it, and what's required from you at each stage. A few important principles apply throughout:

Design is a process of refinement. You start with big decisions and broad gestures, then progressively refine details. Each phase builds on the previous one, which is why backtracking becomes increasingly expensive and time-consuming.

The phases exist for good reasons. This process has evolved over time to balance design quality, legal compliance, construction feasibility, and client involvement. Skipping phases or collapsing them together rarely leads to better outcomes.

Your involvement varies by phase. You're heavily involved during concept, schematic, and design development. Less so during construction documents and permitting. Very involved again during construction administration and furnishing. Understanding this rhythm prevents frustration when I'm working behind the scenes on technical details.

Changes get harder (and more expensive) as you progress. Changing the layout during schematic design is straightforward. Changing it during construction documentation requires redoing substantial work. Changing it during construction can be catastrophically expensive. Make thoughtful decisions early and stick with them.

The relationship matters. You'll be working with your architect and contractor for months or even years. Choose people you trust, communicate well with, and genuinely like. The process goes more smoothly when everyone involved respects each other and works collaboratively.

If you're considering a home renovation, addition, or new construction project in New Jersey or New York, understanding this process is the first step. The second step is finding an architect who can guide you through it with expertise, transparency, and genuine care for your goals.

That's exactly what I do at Tight House.