@Roselynn Lewis -- thanks for the update. Always interested to see how development projects are being approached -- keep us posted.
Ah, the bad rep architects are given... by contrast, my favorite cartoon caption reads, "Out of the way, you swine...an Architect is present."
I assume your potential development is multi-family. For an architect, from a risk management viewpoint, this type of project ranks as number one -- it's a very litigious category. Which, is not to say that architects necessarily shy away. Many don't -- and most multi-family projects in most states require an architect's / engineers stamp -- so architects are getting regularly involved.
It should also be understood that when working with an architect, developers typically pay the architect for very specific, very partial services on a sort of a la carte basis only. The architect is typically given very limited information on a need-to-know basis, and it is largely assumed that the architect does not need to know. And, for the narrow purposes and needs of the developer, the architect does not need to know.
So, should litigation then occur, as it often does, the stamping architect armed with only partial information and limited involvement is not in a great position. Confusion and finger-pointing ensues.
This scenario seems to have also led some to conclude that architects don't even understand all of the parameters necessary to deliver a project -- which, is not the case at all. On this forum, real estate investment tends to focus primarily on SFH's and multi's, and so, in this arena, contact with an architect is usually limited to permit sketches and also what amounts to legalized rubber stamping when required.
Less than one percent of SFH's in the US were designed by architects. And, most multi developers are simply looking for pretty renderings up front to drum up interest (with the promise of more work -- and payment to come post-funding), and then the required stamp on the other end. Get the architect in where legally needed, then get him out.
Anyway, due to the nature of real estate investing, the "Architect as Hapless Necessary Evil / Nuisance" gains traction in this type of forum.
None of this means that I personally think architects are flawless, although I myself am... I'm merely pointing out the flaws in some of the statements / reasoning found here.
One specific example -- cost estimates. It was stated that architects don't know costs (paraphrasing). Given the way most architects are used in multi developments, it may very well seem that way on the surface. However, on full-service projects under typical A.I.A. contracts -- where architects have all necessary information -- architects are required to provide cost estimates to the Owner at regular intervals as the project develops. Further, should bids then come in high, the architect is legally required to revise the documents to bring down the cost to meet the budget. Architects are regularly legally responsible for their estimates. Also, in the last couple offices I've worked, project estimates have averaged within 3% of actual bid numbers, which, is rather pinpointed.
...More than you cared to know.