Architect's suggestions disappointing - What next?

Thank you for your advice. I am cautious anyway with the further course of action.

What I would have seen differently is that in my opinion the architect is there to propose a good development and not (just) me as a layman. What do I have him for then? It’s like taking my car to the workshop and they can't fix it while I pay for the hours. And then they say I should deal with the problem, suggest a solution to the workshop, and they repair accordingly.

..It's like taking my car to the workshop and they can't fix it, while I pay the labor hours.

The car was repaired, it's just that you don't like the oval wheels. It doesn't run perfectly smoothly, but it runs.

The question is whether you really want to spend several hundred thousand euros on a compromise just because you don't want to think for yourself. I say this also because the responsibility for your project lies solely with you. Everyone else just wants to make money. The only one who wants it to be good is you. You can get used to that. So go for it.

The car was repaired, only that you don't like the oval wheels. It doesn't run perfectly, but it runs.

delicious

What I would have seen differently, however, is that in my opinion the architect is there to propose a good building development and not (only) me as a layperson. What do I have him for then?

That is architect type A. The "architect" type B has a different objective (that of his breadwinner, the builder): not to confuse the client with alternatives before signing, but to quickly make the client’s sketches ready for signature and stamping.

The only one who wants it to be good is you. You can already get used to that. So go for it.

Accordingly, my last post read as an instruction for action:

Either
Become a "private patient" of an architect (type A) whom you commission directly yourself

or - if you want to stick with the plan presenter -
plan your house yourself. My two cents on that you find as said in #4 of your plot thread: put a nice house on the street; leave as much west garden as possible for the evening sun; give the carport what remains.

House, terrace, and garage cannot all have top priority at the same time. Neither fish nor fowl exists; the other side of the coin South Street usually means north garden. South Street and south garden and short house connections form a magical triangle, of which even a star architect can only fulfill two wishes together.

In conversation with our architects, it came up that most private builders have no interest in creative performance at all. Usually, they come inspired by catalogs with an almost finished design. The couple has brooded over it for nights and already agreed among themselves that their own design is good - how can you still argue against that? As an architect, one is then only allowed to make finishing touches.

This is also okay when building single-family homes for ordinary mortals. This is simply not the market for free spirits. That a potential new client and architect match stylistically like hand and glove is just too rare (especially since the new client often (deliberately) does not pursue any style), so this is not the top priority. Architects have to eat, too.

They then let themselves go in the multi-family homes of the wealthier clientele. But they have also set (been allowed to set!) the occasional accent with us. We were clear about that, because their portfolio clearly showed what they themselves like (these are also the objects they like to showcase).

OK, the thing with the different architect types is a plausible explanation. The first one was relatively clear to me. For the second, I would have thought he belongs, so to speak, somewhere between the two types. Although I hadn’t really had this architect classification on my radar before. You always learn something new, especially when you have little experience with the industry.

But just for understanding: If I understand correctly, it means here that we would need a lifting system even without a basement if the house is positioned further to the northeast. But then the zero point according to current plans would be at about 412.5. The sewer connection at the street in front is roughly at the same height, below the contour line 413 towards 412. See here:



As you can see, the orientation is even slightly tilted towards the southwest. There is no tree on the street, and currently there is nothing on or in front of the property.

By the way, the architect also suggested one option, which probably goes in the direction that Nordlys briefly mentioned. Garage in the southeast directly at the street front (would be allowed), dug in 1.5 m at the highest point with the driveway to the street parallel from below. From a height perspective, it would be an interesting solution. But I also have my doubts about how it looks. In addition, our garden in the southwest would be open due to the driveway, and generally we would practically sacrifice a 6 m wide strip at the street front for garage + driveway (but maybe it could be designed accordingly). In return, the house could be placed in the east, possibly southeast, with the entrance on the east side further forward and with a covered passage to the garage. This would also level the property a bit.

I wouldn’t build anything parallel to the street alignment unless I had to [emoji2]