The Problem(s) With Design-Build
Introduction
This week we discuss the many pitfalls of the “design-build” design and construction method. In theory, design-build offers many benefits, but in practice, it falls short in many ways, especially for discerning clients.
What is design-build? The traditional project delivery model involves the client hiring both an architect and a contractor separately. In contrast, the design-build model merges these roles into a single entity, providing both architectural design and construction services under one roof. It is often presented as a seamless, one-stop solution for clients looking to simplify the architecture and construction process. By having a unified team responsible for both the design and construction phases, the design-build model promises not only to reduce stress for the client but also to enhance collaboration between the design and construction teams.
“Design-build promises to reduce client stress, streamline communication, and deliver a more efficient timeline”
Problem #1
Most “Design-Build” Companies are NOT “Design-Build”
Although the design-build approach sounds ideal, most firms using this model are led solely by contractors and do not have licensed architects on their team. Instead, they employ “architectural designers,” a term that has no legal standing and is often used to give the impression that the company has licensed architects when, in fact, they do not. In many cases, the architectural designer is not even a full-time employee but rather an independent contractor or draftsperson.
This strategic use of misleading titles can easily confuse clients. The lack of licensed architects on the team often affects the quality of the design the client receives. We have encountered numerous clients who began their projects with design-build firms only to realize months into the process that they were not receiving the architectural services they had expected. The term “design-build” is a misnomer, with “build-design” being a more accurate description in most cases. Architect-led design-build firms operate very differently, as they do have licensed architects on staff, but these firms are unfortunately very rare.
“Most design-build companies do not have licensed architects on their team”
Problem #2
Lack of Transparency
In a traditional process, the client, architect, and contractor work together closely, with all communications being thorough and documented. This documentation is essential not only for the contractor to understand what to build but also for legal reasons. It ensures transparency, allowing the client to be fully aware of every aspect of the project—from design decisions to pricing, schedules, materials, and more.
However, this level of transparency is often missing in design-build models. In these setups, many decisions between the contractor and “architect” happen without proper documentation, leaving clients uninformed about how their money is being spent and/or surprised by design decisions made in the field without their input.
Problem #3
“Design-Build” Is Not Adequate for Custom Homes
The terms “custom home” and “high-end home” are frequently misused, often describing mid-range homes that are marketed as high-end. However, when it comes to truly custom, high-end residences, very few design-build companies are capable of delivering on this promise. This is largely because while architects and contractors share some responsibilities, they are fundamentally different professions, each requiring years of specialized knowledge and experience to master. A well-executed custom home demands expertise from both sides—a team of individuals who are specialists in their respective fields, rather than a team that tries to handle both architecture and construction with only moderate proficiency in each.
It’s important to understand that “design-build” companies lower costs by cutting out major portions of the architecture and design process.
“Design-build companies lower costs by cutting out major portions of the architecture and design process.”
Problem #4
“Design-Build” Firms Don’t Play Well with Others
We advise against using a design-build company solely for their construction services while working with a separate architect or designer. We encountered this issue firsthand when a client hired a design-build firm for the initial design phase but brought us in to take over the architecture and design and keep the design-build company on as the contractor. Although the project was ultimately successful, it was riddled with communication problems. The contractor, who was part of the design-build firm, made frequent errors and did not follow the design we created with the client, causing a great deal of stress and wasted time.
This happens because design-build companies are typically structured for efficiency and shortcuts, not collaboration with outside architects. They’re often not interested in reviewing detailed architectural plans or executing someone else’s design, as their business model prioritizes speed over all else.
“The business model prioritizes speed over all else”
When Design-Build is
Right For You?
“Design-build” might be sufficient for clients who prioritize low costs and efficiency far above all else. It’s not ideal for those who value aesthetic quality, creativity, and a well-thought-out design - in such cases, hiring a dedicated architecture and design office is the better option. It’s also worth noting that trying to guide or coach a design-build company toward your vision can be a frustrating and unproductive process. No matter how much feedback or direction you provide, it won’t change the core of their business model, which is focused on efficiency and quick turnaround rather than creating a custom design tailored to your needs.