Who leads, when the contractor joins, and how much of the process you actually need - six real ways this gets done, each with real trade-offs. No single one is correct; the right one depends on your project and how you want to spend your time.
All six, side by side
Scroll through every method below, in full - the same content the picker above pulls from.
Method 1
Contractor-Led
You hire a contractor first. They talk through what is needed, bring in an architect to draw the plans, and are ready to price and build once that is done.
Pros
Fast start, one point of contact from day one
Contractor already understands what they can build efficiently
Cons
Design exploration is limited or comes late
The architect answers to the contractor rather than you directly
Harder to get competitive contractor bids once you are already committed to one
Method 2
Architect-Led, Full Service
You go to an architect first. Together you define the project, the architect designs it start to finish, then helps you select and hire the contractor to build it.
Pros
Fullest design exploration before any construction commitment
The architect represents only your interests
Competitive bidding once drawings are complete
Lower potential for change orders, since design decisions are made early and fully resolved
Cons
Longest timeline before ground breaks
Biggest upfront commitment of time and fees
Can be more process than a modest project needs
Method 3
Architect-Led, Phased
You hire the architect for the first package only, get real contractor pricing during that phase, select a contractor, and they stay involved refining the design for buildability through the second package, then build.
Pros
Real pricing information early
A genuine pause-and-decide point before going further
The contractor improves buildability and cost control as design details are resolved
Cons
Two separate engagement decisions instead of one
Slightly longer than design-build
Requires committing to one contractor at the midpoint of design
Method 4
Design-Build Firm
One company, architects and builders under the same roof, from day one.
Pros
Single point of accountability
Design and pricing move in parallel
Less handoff friction
Cons
The team is aligned under one company, not purely independent on your behalf
No competitive bidding, since the builder is fixed from the start
Often works with a select set of material and product manufacturers
Less design exploration than the independent models
Method 5
Design-Build Partnership
An independent architect and an independent contractor, under one contract to you (or a sub-contract between them either direction), working collaboratively through design, permit, and construction, each stepping in where their expertise matters most.
Pros
Design and pricing move in parallel
Less handoff friction between design and construction
A genuinely collaborative process among contractor, architect, and client
Cons
Fewer competitive bidding opportunities, since the contractor is selected from the start
Method 6
A la Carte
You hire for exactly one piece of the work, and take it from there yourself.
Pros
Lowest upfront cost and commitment
Pay only for exactly what is needed
Flexible for testing a house's potential or solving one specific problem
Cons
No one holding the whole project together unless you re-engage each time
You manage your own sequencing between phases or parties
A la carte, a few real examples
Pre-Design or Schematic Design
Understand a house's potential before committing to anything further.
Design Development through Permit
Take a design you already have and make it real, buildable, and permit-ready.
Construction Administration
Already have a permit in hand, and need help overseeing the build.
Others are available, depending on your situation - a phone call is usually enough to figure out which piece actually fits.
Next step
See how the phases actually package together, regardless of which delivery method you lean toward.
