Do I Need an Architect or a General Contractor?

The short answer

For most commercial projects, you need both — an architect to design and permit it, and a licensed contractor to build it.

The question isn't really which one. It's whether you hire them separately, or hire one firm that does both. That single decision affects your budget, your schedule, and how many phone calls you personally have to make when something goes wrong. The rest of this page explains the difference so you can choose deliberately instead of by default.

What each one actually does

Two different jobs, two different licenses.

Designs and permits it

The Architect

A licensed professional who designs the space and produces the drawings the city needs before anyone can legally build.

Space planning — how the layout works, where things go, how people move through it
Construction documents — the drawing set contractors build from and the city reviews
Code compliance — accessibility, exiting, occupancy, and the requirements your build triggers
Permit submittal — filing with the city and responding to plan-check corrections
Consultant coordination — structural, mechanical, electrical, and plumbing engineers

An architect does not build anything, and generally cannot tell you with certainty what the finished project will cost.

Builds it

The General Contractor

A licensed builder who takes the approved drawings and turns them into a finished, inspected, usable space.

Pricing the work — bidding the drawings and giving you a construction number
Scheduling — sequencing trades so the job moves in the right order
Subcontractors — hiring and managing framing, electrical, plumbing, HVAC, finishes
Field execution — running the site, ordering materials, solving what comes up
Inspections — calling them, passing them, and closing out the permit

A general contractor builds what is drawn. If the drawings are incomplete or unbuildable, that becomes your problem — and usually your cost.

The traditional path

Hiring them separately has a gap in the middle.

This sequence is called design-bid-build. It's the default, it's been around forever, and it works — but there's a structural problem in it that nobody warns first-time owners about.

You hire an architect

They design the project and produce a full drawing set. You pay for this before you know what construction will cost.

You bid it out

Contractors price the drawings. Numbers come back — often further apart than you expected, and often above budget.

Redesign, or overpay

If bids exceed budget, you pay the architect again to redesign, then re-bid. Weeks or months disappear here.

You're the middleman

When the drawings and reality disagree on site, the architect and contractor each point at the other. You decide — and you pay.

The gap is accountability. Two companies, two contracts, two sets of interests. When something is missing from the drawings, the architect says the contractor should have caught it and the contractor says he built exactly what was drawn. Both are usually right — and the change order is yours either way.

The option nobody mentions

You can hire one firm that does both.

It's called design-build. One company holds the architecture and the construction under a single contract, so the people drawing it and the people building it work for the same firm — and answer to you together.

	Architect + GC separately	Design-build
Contracts you sign	Two	One
When you learn the real cost	After design is finished	While design is happening
If bids come in high	Pay to redesign, then re-bid	Adjusted before it's drawn
Drawing gaps & conflicts	Change order to you	Absorbed by the firm
Who's accountable	Depends who you ask	One firm
Schedule	Sequential — design, then bid, then build	Overlapping — usually faster
Your time	You coordinate between them	One point of contact

Which do you actually need?

Find your situation below.

Honest answers, including the ones where you don't need us.

“I have a space and an idea, but nothing on paper.”

You need design first

An architect or a design-build firm. Design-build is usually the better call here, because you'll learn what it costs while it's still cheap to change.

“I'm still comparing spaces and haven't signed a lease.”

You need advice, not a contract

Talk to someone who can walk the spaces with you. The wrong space is the most expensive mistake available, and it's fully avoidable before you sign.

“I have permitted drawings and just need someone to build it.”

You need a general contractor

That's it — you don't need design services. Take bids from licensed GCs. We do this too, but any good contractor can serve you here.

“I have drawings, but they aren't permitted yet.”

Have them reviewed before you bid

Incomplete drawings are the single biggest source of change orders. A constructability review now costs far less than the corrections later.

“It's cosmetic — paint, flooring, fixtures, no walls moving.”

You probably need neither

If you're not altering the layout, structure, or systems, a good contractor may be all you need — possibly without a permit. Don't over-hire.

“It's a ground-up building or a major change of use.”

You need the full team

Architecture, engineering, entitlements, and construction. This is where design-build saves the most, because the coordination burden is largest.

Being straight with you

When design-build isn't the right answer.

It isn't the correct choice for every project, and any firm that tells you otherwise is selling rather than advising.

When you already have drawings you're happy with

If your design is done, permitted, and you like it, paying for design services again makes no sense. Hire a contractor to build it and keep your money.

When the design is the entire point

For a signature building where the architecture itself is the goal, a dedicated design architect may be worth the extra coordination. Some projects deserve that.

When you're required to bid it out

Public agencies and some institutions must take competitive bids on a fixed design. If that's your situation, the process is decided for you.

What people ask next.

Usually the opposite, though not because the hourly rates differ. The savings come from not paying to redesign when bids come in high, and from far fewer change orders during construction — because the people who drew it are the people who have to build it. The upfront number can look similar; the finished number is typically lower and much more predictable.

You shouldn't. A design-build firm still employs licensed architects doing the same work under the same codes. What changes is that the design is tested against real construction costs as it develops rather than after. For a signature architectural statement, a dedicated design architect may still be the better fit — that's the honest exception.

Yes, provided it holds both credentials. In California that means a licensed architect for the design and a CSLB-licensed contractor for the construction. Always verify both — plenty of firms advertise "design-build" while subcontracting one half to someone else. Ask directly which license they hold and who actually performs each part.

Then you need a general contractor, and that's a perfectly good place to be. It's worth having the drawings reviewed for constructability before you bid them — gaps found now are cheap; gaps found in the field are change orders.

Typically the licensed contractor pulls the building permit, while the architect prepares and submits the drawings for plan check. Under design-build both sit with one firm, so nothing gets dropped between submittal and permit issuance — a common source of quiet delay when two companies are involved.

Check what each excludes, not just the total. A low bid is often low because it omits scope the others included — permit fees, engineering, ADA upgrades, or allowances set unrealistically low. Ask every bidder what's excluded and what their allowances assume. The cheapest bid frequently becomes the most expensive project.

Do I need an architect or a general contractor?