Architect performance phase 1-4 - Which documents are required?

What can really go wrong if you catch the wrong one?

I had linked you the thread history of (???)

What would be worth warning about? Really creepy floor plan because totally convoluted? Or rooms totally dark because windows planned wrong? Or cost estimate completely off? Something like that?

Creepy floor plans are, secondly, rare and, firstly, unproblematic (because they are a mistake that laypeople can recognize themselves). Underestimation and misestimation of costs, yes, those are the dangerous "malpractice". But I have also seen plans that identified the architect as an M.C. Escher fan or revealed that he lacked basic spatial imagination (stairs with, let's say nicely, decreasing headroom, for example).

What can really go wrong if you pick the wrong person?

A few examples:

[*]Call from the architect: “um, the ground floor ceiling will be poured at the factory the day after tomorrow. Please tell me by tomorrow morning where recessed lights should be in the ceiling” WTF - lighting planning overnight??? [*]Waste vent pipe forgotten in the plan — consequence: pipe has to go through the study, an unplanned corner there [*]Unplanned step to the terrace on the upper floor because flat roof thermal insulation was not considered [*]Slope for drainage in the access path not taken into account, no proper water runoff possible [*]Material for thermal insulation not checked, partly wrong material installed [*]Disputes among craftsmen over many detail issues, e.g. window installation, because no details were planned and no one knew what was correct

I could continue the list, unfortunately all experienced. Particularly annoying were the last-minute actions like with the lighting. That’s why we are now building with another architect, who only issues contracts once all details are drawn. It takes a while until construction starts and is expensive, but I wouldn’t do it any other way.

WTF - lighting planning overnight???

Sorry, but even as a client you should think about lighting beforehand. That it happens near the mentioned construction progress should actually be clear. The rest, okay, is no good. Otherwise, we have now completed service phases 1-3 with our architect (flat rate offer near HOAI Zone III middle section) and I would do it exactly the same again. The input on our ideas and the architect's suggestions were worth the price. The planned house now looks completely different from what we had originally thought up as laymen, but by dimensions better and above all coherent.

Sorry, but even as a client you should have already thought about lighting beforehand. It should actually be clear that this happens near the mentioned construction progress.

Absolutely not. My involvement in the discussion with the architect takes place in service phase 3, at which point "construction progress" is still a distant future. Without changes, this will no longer be altered by service phase 5; the ceiling will then be specified and produced according to the detailed drawings. In service phase 8, I must be able to be on a cruise or in the Himalayas, otherwise I don’t need the architect construction manager. A ceiling is a planned element; except for bomb or Roman finds, there should be no events requiring intervention involving the client anymore in service phase 8.

The input for our ideas and the architect’s suggestions were worth the price. Although the planned house now looks completely different from what we originally thought up in an amateurish way, it is dimensions better and above all consistent.

I hear that often and gladly (even without being an architect myself, which some readers have apparently not quite noticed yet).

Otherwise we have now completed service phases 1–3 with our architect (flat rate offer near the HOAI Zone III midpoint) and I would do it exactly the same way again.

But that is not the end of the story yet. What comes next: general contractor or continuing with the architect’s planning and construction management? Service phases 1 to 3 are always a good scope of service if you are sure about two things from the start—namely that you want to take a general contractor, and that you will go through with the first architect up to that point. But even then, firstly the rest period between phases 2 and 3 should be strictly maintained, and secondly the architect from service phase 3 should have a renewed appearance in service phase 8.

But absolutely not. My involvement in the discussion with the architect takes place in service phase 3, where "construction progress" is still a distant future.

He did say "ahem, the ground floor slab will be poured in the factory the day after tomorrow." THAT construction progress is what I mean. The pouring of the slab surely does not happen in service phase 3.

But that is not the end of the story yet. What comes next: general contractor or continuing with the architect’s planning and construction management?
Service phases 1 to 3 are always a good scope of services when you are certain of two things from the start, namely that you want to hire a general contractor and that you will continue with the first architect up to that point. But even then, firstly, the resting phase between service phases 2 and 3 should be strictly observed, and secondly, the architect from service phase 3 should have a renewed appearance in service phase 8.

No, of course not. At the time planning began, the question of general contractor or not was not yet completely clear. Meanwhile, however, we are sure that we want to continue with him. It was a very pleasant matter. I read about the resting phase in your blog in the meantime and gave it a lot of thought; in retrospect, the process was so "quiet" that we did not need a particularly scheduled pause.

He did say "uhm, the EG ceiling will be poured at the factory the day after tomorrow." THIS construction progress is what I mean. Pouring the ceiling obviously does not happen in service phase 3.

That was/is already clear to me. That’s exactly what I am talking about: that the ceiling is only poured after I have long since fully informed the architect where which lamp, which access point, or whatever else will go.

No, of course not. At the time planning began, the issue of whether there would be a general contractor or not was not yet entirely clear. Meanwhile, we are sure that we want to continue working with him. It was a very pleasant matter.

If the point "friends at least until the end of service phase 3" was not yet clarified, I find this scope of services unusual.
Likewise, if the decision "in favor of a general contractor" had not already been made/taken. Making the cut precisely after service phase 3 only really makes sense if you want to build with a general contractor—especially a timber "finished" construction general contractor. Then it is actually no longer about "up to service phase 3" but rather "still without service phase 4" (because that would otherwise be redundant).

I read about the dough resting time in your blog during the process and thought a lot about it; in retrospect, the process was so "calm" that we did not need a specifically timed rest period.

There is a comment function in the blog where one can also ask questions. The dough resting time is not about a needed breather, but about a settling of the interim planning result. The preliminary draft should, like screed before covering, first "dry" before further work on the design is added. And for the client’s soul, it is also about the "mourning work" of the "fear of missing out"—that is, the fear that after the dice have been cast one might miss the much better, much better, much better building ideas that surely would have existed somewhere beyond the seven mountains with the seven dwarfs and that could have been even nicer than the result of the preliminary draft. Letting the preliminary draft "heal" (or becoming "sure" rather than "anxious" about which details still need to be remodeled) is enormously important. Otherwise, you go "crazy" and, like Princess , walk the stairs back and forth 148,723 times and move the partition wall between the parents' and children's bathroom differently again and again; and of course, "all the windows are in the wrong place." FOR THIS there needs to be a phase of closure with the planning decision (or its final correction). The architect must also eventually be allowed to feel sure that one will no longer come with a thousand little changes but that the work can continue in a structured way toward the goal. A crazy dog sleeps poorly; it is no different for an architect :)
That some architects do not like single-family houses has only partly to do with the much larger money bags to be earned with apartment complexes. But very much so with the fact that an apartment building developer does not want everything hysterically changed again and again. Because he does not want to create knots in his own business process.