Architect contract for single-family house - ok?

3.7 I find amusing: if the house becomes more expensive, the architect also wants a higher fee (?), instead of covering the cost overrun damage with his fee (???). Besides, blacking out the fee amount makes little sense and only makes it harder to assess whether the lump-sum fee is actually more advantageous than the table rates.

If you already know that you want to build with single contracts and the architect works the way you imagine - you can do it like that.... If you want to keep the option of a general contractor turnkey construction open or want to have the option to get rid of the architect - then limit to performance phases 1-4 and only more if it fits then...

Being able to part ways with an architect soon again seems to be your personal favorite topic. I have surely already pointed out (to you) that you are only allowed to build a house with no more than the approval plans, but you cannot actually build one with just those plans ;-) Working with a freelance architect only up to performance phase 4 is neither fish nor fowl – you might as well have taken the general contractor’s draftsman. An architect only really pays off if he is still the same one in the second half (performance phases 5 to 8). Imagine if Mozart had conducted Wagner operas: that would have been a cat’s musical chaos. It is no different in construction. If there is uncertainty about the architect’s competence and/or the "chemistry" with him, an exit after performance phase 4 (which is not even provided for here!) is way too late.

Being able to part ways with an architect again soon seems to be your personal favorite topic. I’m sure I’ve already pointed out to you ;-) that you are only allowed to build a house with no more than the approval plans, but that doesn’t mean you can. Working with the freelance architect only up to and including service phase 4 is neither fish nor fowl – at that point you might as well have taken the general contractor’s drafting slave. An architect only really pays off when he is still the same one in the second half (service phases 5 to 8). Imagine Mozart had conducted Wagner operas: that would have been a cacophony. It’s no different in construction. If there is uncertainty about the competence of the architect and/or the "chemistry" with him, exiting after service phase 4 (which is not even envisaged here!) is much too late.

You assume that every architect understands and can do the craft from service phase 1 to service phase 8, but that is by no means the case. One is creative and can realize functional layouts taking into account the property and customer requirements. Another is meticulous in the tendering process and quality assurance because he is naturally a perfectionist and simply cannot help it. And how can the client sense a comprehensively good architect? Actually not at all, since he only ever has contact with the creative architect at the beginning. What is noticed immediately, however, is that this person has weaknesses in implementing the customer’s wishes. I would always recommend splitting the contracts to enable a separation together as quietly as possible without major financial damage. Furthermore, I find the contract very unfriendly to the client. Not only regarding financial compensation, but the fee is oriented towards the HOAI but, of course, not towards the required tasks and documents. Such nonsense. Sure, that works if you pay only €10k for 1-8, but the amount is not redacted without reason!

You assume that every architect understands and can handle the craft of service phases 1 through 8 comprehensively, but that is by no means the case. One may be creative and able to execute functional floor plans taking into account the property and client requirements. Another is meticulous in tendering and quality assurance because, by nature, he is simply picky and cannot do otherwise.

First of all, thank you for this suggestion for a contribution on this topic. For every GOOD architect, it is indeed true that he either masters his profession well across all service phases or is aware of his weaknesses and openly admits them. I myself (not an architect) am, depending on the perspective, either blessed or burdened by the fact that my talents as a diagnostician differ by several octaves from those as an operator.

That I would expect every architect to provide an accurate self-assessment, I simply do not believe. After all, I have specifically NOT advised to book Mr. Uncertain straight through to the final chord. Rather, I concluded with the advice that if one is unsure, an earlier cut-off should be planned. Initially commissioning only service phases 1 and 2 could be a viable alternative here.

I prefer architects who can accompany the entire project. That is not a big deal for a single-family house, and if it gets too hot in the kitchen, one should not become self-employed – or at least not alone, but rather as a creator together with a reliable practitioner.

And how can the client sense a comprehensively good architect? Actually not at all, since he only comes into contact with the creative architect at the beginning. What is noticed immediately, however, is that he has weaknesses in implementing the customer's wishes.

I recommend not scheduling a get-to-know meeting with an architect in his office. That is home turf for the theorist and may unfavorably result in not noticing his weaknesses as a practitioner. It is better to have the architect name his current construction sites and arrange to meet him at one of these. There, one can have his approach explained using a concrete example. If work is still ongoing there, one can also observe how he interacts with the construction workers. From the workers’ faces, you can already read how his competence and authority stand.

The architectural firm we are building with this time is somewhat larger and also employs civil engineers and experienced construction managers (or has such freelancers locally). In addition, they first complete the entire execution planning before construction begins. Then the details for the craftsmen are included in the tender and the contract, so that there are fewer surprises or problems later on. I think that's great.

Thank you for the input so far. Regarding topic 3.7: This was explained to us as there were customers who initially communicated a budget and did not want anything special, but in the end invested 50% more to have the best equipment everywhere. I will also attach the [Leistungsbeschreibung].

Thank you for the previous input. Regarding topic 3.7: This was explained to us that there were customers who initially communicated a budget and did not want anything special and in the end invested 50% more to have the best equipment everywhere. I will still attach the service description.

What a fairy tale uncle. The poor guy. Does he really want to tell you that he had to turn a Flair 112 into a villa and was not compensated for it?