Bradal: (again)
I answered your last post first, so now I'll back up and answer this one. (Why didn't I do both in one ...da?) Anyway, it sounds like you had a bad experience, contractor wise. Yes, Architects have a lot of practical knowledge, but a good contractor should have as much or more. He also should have the skills to actually build what's on the drawings. Schedule the trades, deal with field problems, etc. He is better equiped to do it than the Architect. The problem is, contractors live in a world where most if not all of their business results from them being the cheapest. This isn't a knock against contractors, it's just reality. So the owner paid an Architect to design his building and is getting prices from three or four contractors. Right away the owner is hearing how he can save money by making some minor changes. So the drywall gets thinner, the studs are fewer, less concrete, cheaper light fixtures, etc. The owner therefore paid for a design which didn't get built. This is especially true in residential design where often the Architect is not involved in the bidding and construction phases. When there is no Architect, it can get even worse. I've seen a lot of very expensive houses (always new ones) that are horribly constructed. Basements turn into duck ponds when it rains, roofs sag, etc. A lot of this is caused in large part by the market place, or at least that's my theory. Man, this is gett'in long winded. I'll end by saying that a good Architect adds value, ie "design". A good contractor insures the level of quality the owner expects and builds the project in a timely manner.
Thomas