First off, the licensing of the registered Architect. This certification process means that one has completed 1) the needed degree, of which (in my experience) has little practical application in the real world. True, there are some basic design skills and communication tools of the trade taught, but with such a wide variety of applications and very little understanding of actual construction. This is why the licensing requires 2) the apprenticeship part, (which is essential!). Then there is the actual licensing examination itself, which is specifically designed to focus primarily on commercial applications, code research, basic understanding of engineering principals, etc. In other words, one who is licensed may be able to design a structure that will meet code and be structurally stable, but that is about the extent of what they are tested for. As to their abilities to design a home which will meet the criteria of the individual, and be aesthetically pleasing; there is no guarantee that the title “architect” can provide to that end.

Stock plans, of course, have their pros and cons, as you stated fairly well. I would add that I also believe the vast majority of our housing problems at the moment are due to the “cookie cutter” nature of many stock plans. Not that the stock plan model in and of itself is a bad one; there is just a very poor and outdated selection of home designs to pull from in this category- most plan books produced nowadays are simply rehashes of designs dating back to the 1970′s and 1980, re-marketed in a new book with a new cover.

Finally, the certification process for the Professional Building Designer, which is meant to help fill in the gap the AIA leaves (as it focuses so heavily on the commercial aspect of design). Overall, a better system, but still only checking to ensure that homes are designed according to a basic code standards and construction techniques. The finer aesthetic qualities, being a subjective issue, are left to the judgement of the client.

Which really bring me to the main point I wanted to make. Whether selecting an Architect or a Certified Building designer (and I personally would be very careful about elevating one over the other as superior- of course, I’m hardly unbiased in that regard myself!) to be sure an check the type of work they have done already and be sure that their standards, aesthetic preferences and principles align with your own. Don’t go to someone who does several high rise office buildings a year and only a few homes (most of which are modern glass and steel boxes) just because they have the title “architect” in their name- (unless of course, the steel and glass box is what you are wanting!) Do some research and be sure you know what type of artist you are hiring, lest you expect a “Monet” from a “Mondrian”.

Also, part of the reason the Architect is such an expensive option is due to the fact that most (the really good ones anyway) stand between you and the builder and ensure that the house is built according to a very long list of specifications; detailing every material, appliance and finish. This is called “Construction Administration”, and puts the Architect as the supervisor over the construction. Most contracts are written so the builder actually can’t receive money draws from the bank unless the Architect approves of what had been constructed to date.

However, this sort of oversight is generally reserved for the very high end housing market. I think you would find that quite a few Architects who would be providing the design only to be much closer with the fees of a quality Residential Designer.

I hope you take these comments are merely observations from my own viewpoint, and hopefully not terribly contradictory to the good information you provided in your article, but merely as supplemental information. Best regards.