Want to create or adapt books like this? Learn more about how Pressbooks supports open publishing practices.
20 BIM in Small-Scale Residential Construction
Vy Le
Abstract
This mini-research project explores the application of Building Information Modeling (BIM) in small-scale residential construction, including single-family homes, accessory dwelling units (ADUs), and detached accessory dwelling units (DADUs) in the Seattle-Tacoma region. While BIM is commonly used in large-scale commercial projects, its application in smaller developments remains limited due to perceived cost and complexity. Through interviews with three professionals—an architect, an interior designer, and a former project manager—this study investigates whether BIM adoption can lead to measurable improvements in project cost efficiency, time savings, and construction quality. Findings suggest that while BIM can streamline coordination and reduce design errors, its upfront costs may only be justified when designs are repeated, coordination is complex, or long-term building operation is considered. For typical one-off projects, simplified tools or limited BIM use may offer a better return on investment. The study concludes with practical recommendations on when BIM makes sense for small developers and builders.
1, Introduction
Building Information Modeling (BIM) is a 3D, data-rich design process that enables architects, engineers, and builders to collaborate on planning, visualizing, and coordinating construction projects. Unlike traditional 2D drafting, BIM enables the creation of a virtual building model that can be used to identify design conflicts, estimate costs, and streamline decision-making before construction begins.
BIM is widely used in large construction projects, but its role in small-scale residential construction, such as ADUs, DADUs, and single-family homes, remains limited. Many small builders and owner-developers face delays, cost overruns, and coordination issues, prompting the question: Can BIM improve cost, time, and quality outcomes in these projects?
The research focuses on the Seattle-Tacoma region, where interest in infill housing and pre-approved DADU plans is growing. It draws on interviews with three professionals: Michael Eliason, an architect and sustainable housing advocate; Jessica Hardin, an interior designer specializing in Accessory Dwelling Units (ADUs); and John Ales, a former project manager with experience in affordable housing.
2. Rationale and Objectives
As a future residential developer, I am drawn to the promise of Building Information Modeling (BIM) as a way to reduce costly errors, accelerate project delivery, and improve the quality of construction outcomes. Small-scale residential projects, such as single-family homes, Accessory Dwelling Units (ADUs), and Duplex Accessory Dwelling Units (DADUs), often suffer from fragmented coordination, design changes, and inefficient workflows, primarily when the developer also acts as the general contractor.
This study investigates whether Building Information Modeling (BIM), renowned for its coordination benefits in large-scale projects, can yield meaningful returns in small-scale housing.
Key questions:
Cost: How much does BIM add to or reduce total project cost?
Time: Does it accelerate design, permitting, or construction?
Quality: Does BIM reduce errors, improve communication, or enhance buildability?
By exploring these questions through interviews with professionals who have utilized BIM in small-scale projects, this study aims to provide practical guidance to future developers, designers, and owner-builders considering the adoption of BIM.
3. Methodology
This research employs a qualitative case study approach to investigate the application of Building Information Modeling (BIM) in small-scale residential construction. The study focuses on three core project outcomes: cost, time, and quality.
3.1 Data Collection
Data was collected through semi-structured interviews with three professionals:
Michael Eliason is an architect, researcher, and founder of Larch Lab, a Seattle-based studio and think tank focused on decarbonized, low-energy buildings and climate-adaptive urbanism. He specializes in Passivhaus, social housing, mass timber, and urban cohousing (Baugruppen). With experience in both the U.S. and Germany, Eliason has helped advance policies for single-stair buildings and serves on the board of Seattle’s Passivhaus Social Housing Developer. He is also the author of Building for People (Island Press, 2024), which promotes the development of livable, climate-friendly, and affordable neighborhoods.
Jessica Hardin is a designer with over a decade of experience spanning architecture, digital design, and marketing. Her work focuses on creating human-centered, accessible experiences that blend physical and digital environments. She utilizes BIM software, such as Revit, to coordinate small-scale residential projects, particularly Accessory Dwelling Units (ADUs) and Duplex Accessory Dwelling Units (DADUs) in the Pacific Northwest. Hardin is known for her cross-disciplinary approach and leadership in empowering creative, well-being-focused teams.
John Ales is a licensed architect and project manager with extensive experience in sustainable residential and affordable housing development. He has worked at firms including Patano Studio and VIA Architecture, where he managed complex housing projects in the Seattle area. John holds a Master of Science in Real Estate from the University of Washington and is currently pursuing a doctoral degree there, with a focus on the intersection of design, housing, and development. His insights draw from both practice and research, with a firm grounding in project feasibility, risk mitigation, and sustainable planning.
Each interview lasted approximately one hour and was recorded with consent. The conversations explored how each professional utilizes Building Information Modeling (BIM) in their workflow, particularly for small residential projects, such as single-family homes, Accessory Dwelling Units (ADUs), and Duplex Accessory Dwelling Units (DADUs).
In addition, the study examined secondary sources, including city-led, pre-approved DADU programs (in Seattle and Tacoma), as well as published case studies, to provide a broader context.
3.2 Data analysis
Interview transcripts were reviewed and coded to identify recurring themes related to the benefits, limitations, and decision-making processes around BIM use. The findings were grouped by their relevance to cost, time, and quality outcomes.
This qualitative, exploratory approach offers grounded insights into the real-world applications of BIM beyond large-scale commercial projects.
4. Findings: Cost, Time, Quality, and public ADU/DADU pre-approved plans.
Interview transcripts were reviewed and coded to identify recurring themes related to the benefits, limitations, and decision-making processes around BIM use. The findings were grouped by their relevance to cost, time, and quality outcomes.
This qualitative, exploratory approach provides grounded insights into the real-world applications of BIM, extending beyond large-scale commercial projects.
4.1 Cost –Upfront Burden, Downstream Values
One of the most commonly cited concerns with Building Information Modeling (BIM) is its perceived cost. For small-scale residential developers, the financial burden of adopting BIM can seem disproportionate due to its upfront demands, such as software licenses, training, and modeling time. However, interviews revealed that BIM may ultimately reduce total project costs through improved coordination and error prevention.
John Ales, a practitioner with experience in single-family residential design, estimated that architectural services using BIM for a custom home typically range from $10,000 to $12,000, compared to $6,000 to $8,000 when using 2D drafting—a roughly 50% increase in design fees. While this may raise soft costs, he emphasized that even a single construction error avoided could offset the additional expense:
“Mess up one HVAC routing… it’ll cost more than your modeling fee” .
Jessica Hardin offered a broader breakdown of total design-related expenses, stating:
“10% for the architectural portion… another 10 to 20% for all of the other consultants… So the total design and consultant cost would be 10 to 30% of the total construction cost” .
She illustrated the value of early coordination by describing a framing conflict that BIM helped resolve during design development:
“We found that the head height of the first level was going to be a little bit too short… saved a significant amount of cost in having to reorder materials.”
Similarly, Michael Eliason shared a case where the absence of a coordinated BIM model led to a stair layout error that required a costly mid-construction fix:
“That was like a $30,000 mistake.”
He also highlighted that BIM’s return on investment increases when designs are reused:
“If you’re doing multiple DADUs, BIM is a long-term asset… the initial modeling can be amortized.”
To quantify these findings, a cost comparison was developed for a hypothetical $500,000 residential project, shown below:
Category
Traditional 2D Approach
With BIM (Based on Interviews)
Land Cost
~20% = $100,000
~20% = $100,000
Soft Costs (Design, Permits, Fees)
~15% = $75,000
~18–20% = $90,000–$100,000
– Architectural Fees
8–10% of hard cost = $34K–$42K
10–12% of hard cost = $42K–$50K
– Engineering, MEP, Structural
3–5% = $13K–$21K
5–8% = $21K–$34K
– Permits, Admin, Other
2–3% = $8K–$13K
2–3% = $8K–$13K
Hard Costs (Construction)
~60% = $300,000
~55–57% = $275,000–$285,000(after savings)
Construction Savings
Minimal
$10,000–$25,000 average but could be more (fewer clashes, fewer RFIs)
Although BIM may increase soft costs by $15,000–$25,000, it has the potential to reduce or neutralize this increase by preventing errors that lead to change orders or construction delays. In some cases, the improved clarity also results in more accurate bids and fewer field questions, reducing the administrative burden during construction. For projects involving repeated designs, such as DADUs, the per-unit modeling cost drops significantly. As Eliason noted, a $10,000 model reused across five sites effectively costs just $2,000 per unit, offering substantial savings compared to hiring a drafter for each.
In summary, while BIM does increase design-phase expenditures, developers may find its long-term value compelling. As Ales concluded:
“It’s not just a design tool — for a developer, it’s about risk reduction. You get better bids, more predictable pricing, fewer surprises.”
4.2 Time –Slower Start, Smoother Finish
In addition to cost savings, Building Information Modeling (BIM) offers significant time-related benefits across the design, permitting, and construction phases. Interviews consistently described BIM as a tool that streamlines coordination, reduces delays, and supports faster decision-making. While the modeling process may initially take longer than traditional drafting, this upfront time investment is often recovered through more efficient downstream workflows.
Jessica Hardin contrasted BIM with 2D drafting tools like AutoCAD:
“It’s double the amount of time if using AutoCAD,” referring to how non-BIM workflows slow down both the coordination process and consultant engagement. In contrast, she described delivering a full schematic package in just two days for a micro-home competition using Revit, emphasizing that BIM supports rapid iterations:
“We used BIM to turn around a complete design in two days.”
ReNook Microhome BIM Project by Jessica Hardin
Michael Eliason similarly emphasized BIM’s ability to accelerate decision-making, especially in client-facing design sessions:
“You’re working in 3D. So it’s just more intuitive… the client can say, ‘Oh, I don’t like how that looks,’ and you can fix it in real time.”
He noted that BIM reduces coordination lag by eliminating drawing mismatches:
“It’s not like, ‘Oh, we missed this thing on page A3 and now it’s not lining up with page S4.’ You just avoid a lot of that coordination mess.”
John Ales reinforced the time savings in the construction phase:
“With BIM, we’re not waiting on RFIs. The plumber can see where the duct is, the framer knows exactly where the beam goes. That saves weeks.”
He also reported positive outcomes during permitting:
“We’ve even had jurisdictions move faster on permit reviews when we submit BIM models. They can visualize compliance issues easier.”
These interview findings suggest that BIM helps developers compress timelines in several ways:
Design: Faster iterations and approvals due to visual clarity and live updates
Coordination: Fewer RFIs and conflicts reduce delays in consultant or trade workflows
Permitting: Jurisdictions may respond more quickly when reviewing 3D models
Construction: Field crews require fewer clarifications, reducing potential downtime
Overall, while the initial modeling effort may take longer than producing 2D documents, the net impact is a shorter overall project timeline. For developers, this can translate into faster turnover, quicker occupancy, and reduced carrying costs.
4.3 Quality –Clarity, Coordination, and Fewer Mistakes
Interviewees consistently agreed that one of BIM’s most significant contributions is to quality control, not only in the built product, but in communication, documentation clarity, and team alignment. For developers, these quality improvements reduce risk, support smoother construction, and enhance the reputation of the finished product.
Jessica Hardin emphasized BIM’s communicative power in diverse teams:
“You’re able to pull those 3D views… especially for contractors where English is not their first language.”
She explained how visual tools like perspective sections and axonometric diagrams improve understanding of complex conditions:
“Minutes of talking through a picture versus hours of trying to explain it verbally.”
Michael Eliason highlighted how BIM models promote consistency and reduce confusion:
“We’re able to generate floor plans, sections, elevations, and details from the same model… everything stays consistent.” This helps avoid discrepancies that commonly arise in 2D workflows, where edits in one sheet may not be reflected elsewhere.
He also stressed the design precision BIM supports:
“It helps us think through volume, light, and material in a way that’s really spatial, not just compositional.”
John Ales focused on how BIM supports construction-phase clarity:
“We’re not passing PDFs back and forth hoping everyone’s reading them right. Everyone’s looking at the same digital building.”
He also noted that virtual walkthroughs increase trust and confidence:
“The ability to walk a client through a space virtually before it’s built — it elevates trust and understanding.”
Collectively, these insights show that BIM enhances quality in three key ways:
For developers managing multiple consultants and trades, these quality improvements translate into fewer mistakes, happier clients, and more predictable outcomes. As Eliason framed it:
“BIM reduces confusion.”
4.4 Public ADU Templates and Shared BIM Resource:
Several interviewees highlighted the opportunity for public-sector support of BIM adoption through pre-approved ADU templates and shared model libraries. These tools could help reduce barriers for small-scale developers, owner-builders, and mission-driven housing groups who often cannot afford custom BIM workflows.
Seattle Pre-Approved DADU Plan #012 by Cast Architecture.
Jessica Hardin emphasized the potential of public ADU templates to streamline permitting and lower design costs:
“If the City already had BIM templates for typical ADU layouts, it would save so much time. You could just adapt from a core model.”
She explained that public agencies already accept prescriptive templates in PDF form for code compliance, and extending this practice into BIM could further democratize access:
“It helps small teams who don’t have the capacity to start from scratch every time.”
Michael Eliason reinforced this perspective, suggesting that shared BIM templates could unlock value for affordable and infill housing:
“There should be public BIM libraries… not just PDFs. If we want to reduce housing costs, that’s one of the easiest ways.”
He also proposed the creation of open-source BIM detail libraries and adaptable volumetric massing models for ADUs and DADUs, especially in jurisdictions with repeated site constraints like setbacks or eave limits:
“If someone else already modeled that stair-to-roof transition or the daylight envelope, why not reuse it?”
From a developer’s perspective, such resources could save thousands of dollars in soft costs per project, especially in contexts with repetitive form factors (e.g., backyard lots, alley access homes, narrow infill parcels). A standardized model library would also reduce consultant coordination time and accelerate permit approvals.
John Ales added that shared 3D assets could also reduce trade-level ambiguity:
“If the city had 3D install-ready models for typical MEP or foundation details, it would eliminate a lot of the guesswork on smaller projects.”
In summary, interviewees agreed that cities and non-profit organizations could play a vital role in scaling BIM’s benefits to underserved developers by offering:
Pre-modeled, editable BIM templates for common ADU types
Reusable 3D code compliance details
Publicly accessible model repositories for volumetric studies and permit-ready elements
Such tools would not only increase efficiency but also promote design equity, ensuring that smaller firms and individual homeowners can participate in higher-quality, data-informed design processes.
5. Discussion
The findings from this study reveal that while Building Information Modeling (BIM) introduces measurable upfront costs, it delivers significant value across all stages of small-scale residential development. The benefits, particularly in terms of coordination, clarity, and error prevention, become especially compelling when projects involve complex conditions, tight sites, or repetitive designs, such as DADUs or infill housing.
From a cost perspective, BIM raises soft costs by an estimated 2–5% of the total project budget. However, interviewees noted that the investment often neutralizes or outweighs itself by reducing costly errors during the construction phase. As demonstrated in the $500,000 project example, a $15,000–$25,000 increase in modeling fees could easily be recouped through the avoidance of a single $20,000–$30,000 mistake. Additionally, BIM offers economies of scale when models are reused, particularly in speculative or affordable housing formats, which substantially lowers the per-unit design cost.
In terms of time, BIM improves overall project timelines despite requiring more effort upfront. The ability to iterate designs quickly, visualize solutions clearly, and resolve spatial conflicts during the design phase leads to smoother coordination among consultants and faster decision-making. Notably, BIM may also accelerate permitting in jurisdictions that are willing to engage with 3D models during the plan review process, offering potential schedule benefits for developers navigating lengthy approval processes.
The most consistent advantage highlighted in interviews was related to quality. BIM enhances communication among all project stakeholders, particularly in settings where language barriers or visual literacy challenges can otherwise hinder coordination. Contractors, trades, clients, and consultants are better aligned when working from a shared 3D model, reducing RFIs, misunderstandings, and costly field improvisations. For developers, this leads to more predictable builds, improved subcontractor performance, and increased client satisfaction.
One of the most forward-looking themes that emerged was the potential for public BIM libraries and pre-approved ADU templates. Several interviewees advocated for jurisdictions to develop and distribute open-source, editable Building Information Modeling (BIM) models for typical housing typologies. These tools could significantly lower the barriers for small developers, owner-builders, and equity-focused projects by reducing design and permitting costs while promoting quality and compliance. Public BIM infrastructure, particularly for standardized Accessory Dwelling Units (ADUs) or modular infill formats, would support more efficient, scalable, and equitable housing production.
Taken together, these findings suggest that while BIM may still be perceived as a high-end design tool, it is increasingly viable and advantageous for small-scale residential developers when adopted strategically. Future work could explore how to operationalize shared BIM resources at the municipal level, identify funding mechanisms for small firms to access modeling support, and measure long-term outcomes of BIM adoption in affordable housing delivery.
6. Conclusion
This study examined the practical applications of Building Information Modeling (BIM) in small-scale residential development, drawing on interviews with practitioners who have applied BIM in various contexts, ranging from custom single-family homes to backyard cottages and detached accessory dwelling units (DADUs). The findings suggest that while BIM increases soft costs upfront, it frequently reduces overall project costs, accelerates timelines, and significantly improves communication and build quality.
From a developer’s perspective, BIM should not be viewed solely as a design tool but as a risk mitigation strategy. The ability to catch errors early, improve trade coordination, and visually communicate intent yields benefits that far outweigh the initial modeling fees, particularly in projects where site constraints, utility routing, or repetitive designs pose risks to schedule and budget. Moreover, BIM’s value is amplified when models are reused or shared across projects, creating long-term efficiency.
A particularly promising opportunity lies in the development of public BIM resources, such as editable ADU templates and 3D code-compliant details. These shared tools could lower barriers for small developers and help scale high-quality housing solutions more equitably. Municipal support for BIM-based permitting and open-source design libraries would make the benefits of these tools more accessible to underserved communities and owner-builders alike.
As cities continue to push for greater housing production, especially through accessory dwelling units and gentle infill strategies, BIM has the potential to be a key enabler of quality, speed, and affordability. Supporting its adoption through shared infrastructure and policy reform may be a critical next step in making small-scale housing both more feasible and more resilient.
City of Seattle. (n.d.). Accessory dwelling units (ADUs). Seattle Department of Construction & Inspections. https://www.seattle.gov/sdci/codes/codes-we-enforce-(a-z)/accessory-dwelling-units
City of Seattle. (n.d.). Pre-approved DADU plan #012 by CAST Architecture [Image]. Seattle Department of Construction & Inspections. https://www.seattle.gov/sdci/permitting/permits/common-projects/accessory-dwelling-units/pre-approved-dadu-plans
City of Tacoma. (n.d.). Pre-approved DADU plan options. Tacoma Permits. https://www.tacomapermits.org/tip-sheet-index/pre-approved-dadu-plan-options
Eliason, M. (2025, May). Interview.
Hardin, J. (2025, May). Interview.
Passive House Institute. (n.d.). What is a passive house? https://passivehouse.com
Vy Le is a Master of Science in Real Estate candidate at the University of Washington with a focus on sustainable development, housing equity, and construction innovation. With experience in both residential investment and general contracting, she is passionate about bridging design and execution to create more inclusive, efficient housing solutions. Vy is particularly interested in how small-scale development, emerging technologies, and public policy can intersect to address housing affordability and urban livability across diverse communities.
