Architect for initially phases 1 and 2 in Upper Bavaria, new construction

Now that the land purchase is progressing, and I have been convinced here to at least plan the first phases with an architect, I am now looking for one.

Can anyone recommend an architect in Upper Bavaria (between Munich, Rosenheim, and Bad Tölz)?

Roughly the project:

[*]New construction
[*]2 single-family houses (unless the architect convinces us otherwise for a duplex)
[*]Open to construction method (currently leaning slightly towards stone)
[*]Initially phases 1 and 2 (and then we will see how it goes)
[*]The goal is a preliminary building inquiry, as there is no development plan
[*]Fixed price would be good

I am grateful for any tips.

I am grateful for all tips.

Just today I gave some like these:

1. You look for an architect (or have one found for you, I work nationwide and there are several consultants of my kind). "Suitable for your project" means [...] that he has a focus on activities and experience in single-family house construction. [...] For couchsurfing information gatherers it gets a bit tricky here: the typical suitable single-family house architect not only has an office where he is the sole professional, but often also a dusty "Hohmpäidsch" - sometimes even creepy retro at T-online - and almost always stays under the radar if you try to find him based on "reviews."

and an hour later, ...

1. Building in Munich, you find here @Muc1985 (where I am not sure whether your build would be peanuts for their, in my opinion, recommendable architectural firm) and @gregman22 (whose architect is not personally on my must-get-to-know list).

... specifically for a search area also suitable for you.

Initially service phases 1 and 2 (and then see how it goes on)

That is not good - this way you have not yet excluded the "service phases 1 to 4" Smurfs and the architect could misinterpret this wording as if one intends to starve the architect. It is better to say "service phases 1 to 5 with options to exit after service phase 2 as well as extension up to and including service phase 8." Also read what I recommended first above regarding the further procedure after the dough rest. You can book the "Setting the course: steering towards implementation" not only with me but often also with the architect.

P.S., I had forgotten to make some clarifications on this:

[*]Open regarding construction method (currently we are slightly leaning towards stone)
[*]The goal is a preliminary construction inquiry, as there is no development plan

I always recommend deriving the construction method decision from the feedback on the orientation inquiry during the resting phase, explicitly not to make it beforehand. Statements from the architect regarding preferences / reservations / areas of expertise should initially only be noted "for the back of the mind" together with any justifications and an effort made to continue developing the preliminary draft construction-method-neutral. An exception is the explicit pursuit of a passive house or even fixation on such – in this case the decision "against stone" has practically already been made in advance, insofar as the feedback will then clearly favor providers of wooden construction methods.

[B]A preliminary construction inquiry is all the more urgently recommended if there is a classical indication for it (e.g., a formal insertion requirement according to §34 instead of a development plan). But also factual insertion desires (in a development plan area that is however already largely fully built-up and whose development plan is already old) are a good reason to use this instrument. A frequently underestimated indication is also tricky height issues, for example with floating or flowing reference heights and in hillside locations with different eave heights or story requirements for mountain and valley sides respectively (e.g., I+D on one side and U+I on the other). In all these cases, disagreements in interpretation regularly occur. But also in many other cases it "does no harm" to file a preliminary construction inquiry. Basically, one can say: even the existence of an undisputed development plan is not a contraindication ;-)

A preliminary construction inquiry is often "not necessary" and omitting it saves a little money, but it practically never costs time since its best timing is at the beginning of the resting phase and it can generally be processed quickly. A need for dialogue during the preliminary construction inquiry should be regarded as a clear warning sign of complications in the actual building permit procedure!

... especially for a search area that also suits you

So, I’m only now getting back to answering. In any case, many thanks for the two points of contact. I have also collected one recommendation myself and will see what comes of it. I’m also bookmarking your blog and services :)

That’s not good – that way you have not yet excluded the "service phases 1 to 4" Smurfs and the architect could misinterpret this wording as if one wants to starve the architect. Better is "service phases 1 to 5 with options for exit after service phase 2 as well as extension up to and including service phase 8." Also read what I recommended first above regarding the further procedure after the dough rest. Instead of booking “Set the course: Steering towards implementation” with me, you can often also book it with the architect.

Good tip. Of course, I don’t want the architect to deliberately plan in such a way that it can only be implemented with one architect (and especially well with him), but that he drafts with an open outcome. I’ll see how the first personal talks go.

The construction method decision I always recommend deriving from the feedback on the orientation inquiry during the dough rest phase, i.e., expressly not making it beforehand. Statements by the architect regarding preferences / reservations / competency focal points in this regard are initially only taken “into account at the back of one’s mind” along with their possible justifications, and one tries to develop the preliminary design still construction-method-neutral. An exception is the explicit pursuit of a passive house or even fixation on one – in this case, the decision “against stone” has practically already been made in advance, insofar as the feedback will clearly favor providers of wooden construction methods.

I had also taken that from your previous postings and it was one of the most valuable pieces of information for me on how to approach the planning of a single-family house. Thank you!

Good point. Of course, I don’t want the architect to consciously plan in such a way that it can only be realized with one architect (and especially well with him), but that he drafts with an open outcome.

Now I’m wondering what you might have misunderstood. I wanted to say: if you approach the architect about only service phases 1 and 2, he might think you want to use architectural services only to a very minimal extent and then leave the architect profession without work. He should clearly recognize that you are not looking for a house design idea provider for the further path with a general contractor, but that you want to remain an architectural client in the later phases – only not commissioned all the way to the end from the start. That an architect would design in a way incompatible with colleagues is an unfounded fear. It can only be aimed at clarifying in a qualified manner with the preliminary design which construction method in the concrete individual case will yield the more favorable offers.

I had also taken that from your previous posts and it was one of the most valuable pieces of information for me on how to approach the planning of a single-family house. Thank you!

Which information do you mean now: not wanting to make the construction method decision prematurely, or that you already anticipate it roughly with an EH40 or even passive house?