11ant
2023-11-13 15:55:06
- #1
Wow, there’s a lot going on here today – it would probably get confusing to quote all the answered points. So first of all, many thanks to for your certainly very valuable, jam-packed sack full of misunderstandings, misconceptions & co. for many readers.
And apparently you have also misinterpreted some of my posts here and elsewhere. We can gladly clear that up, just give me a call.
Catalog houses are designed according to the motto "one size fits all" for normal families. This coin has two sides as usual: they fit like a Golf for Meiermüllerschulzes – but the downside is that a third child and/or a second home office immediately cause you to fall out of this mainstream framework. Catalog houses are budget-oriented and tailored to average earners: so they lack flexible buffering spaces. Accordingly, frustration is practically guaranteed if you want/need to tinker in one (or even two!) additional rooms. I have already discussed the way out here and in "Changing a floor plan in size": namely not trying to reallocate a catalog house to a more suitable overall size, but rather to “extend the wheelbase” of a smaller model.
The role of a freelance architect is completely misunderstood if you see them as a floor plan originality officer – "forget the ring – the ring is junk, ..." (Mel Brooks in "Spaceballs"). The architect’s skill shows in service phase 5. It is (after the dough proof phase) the second crucial step to securing the actual budget compliance of the house wish implementation – NOT the chase for the best-looking price promise!
Whoever has not only read but also understood my house-building roadmap (which – not without reason – currently receives the "Reloaded" bonus episodes, thanks again for the previous reader response) will never forego a thorough service phase 5, since here essentially lies the seed for avoiding costly mistakes. No, the architect’s mandate scope of service phases 1 to 3 does not yet qualify for successful contracting of a general contractor (GU). And that’s partly because only madmen with too much money plan everything with the architect continuously in phases 1 to 3, and only even crazier people with even more money then immediately pick a general contractor.
The approach I recommend is different (and the best advice to a private homeowner is: "imagine you were "). Namely, to first work through module A with the architect only and then, with the result (i.e., the predesign), go into the most important phase: the active pause aka “dough proof and branching.” Here the predesign sniffs the wind of the respective current market reality. Only privately insured people with platinum credit cards can afford to skip this phase and go straight from service phase 2 to phase 3 without pause. The same goes for any prejudgment of construction methods, both "massive" vs. "prefab" – thanks to for the note on the variant “’Massive’ and ‘Prefab’” – as well as for "definitely with a general contractor," "definitely self-single awarding" or similarly dangerously expensive foolishness.
The result (of the decisions in branching) then points the way forward. Not even the smartest 11ant has it in their crystal ball, but must wait for this result – four decades of planning experience change nothing about that. Only if the result suggests building with a prefabricating general contractor (this applies in stone as well as in wood) is the next installment of the architect contract the HOAI service phase 3. After that, the prefabricating GU takes over further planning, with independent advice added. This can also come from the previous architect but then leaves the established paths of the phase sequence according to the HOAI model. Or one can go to colleagues Beuler, Freyermuth, Zink or to me or one of my not so rare colleagues. If the result points toward “stone on stone,” then commissioning the architect with the full module B (i.e., phases 3 to 5) is recommended.
Yes, service phase 5 is the fee-intensive one. And no, it’s not the most expensive, quite the opposite: it is actually the most cost-neutral. Without phase 5, phases 6 and 7 have no foundation, and then one "wonders" in phase 8 about the runaway costs and/or quality, which even the most expert owner-party site manager cannot get back on track. And the GU "site manager" … LOLLL … probably no further comment needed. A service phase 5 by the author (or significant contributor of) service phase 3 does not make the build more expensive – rather cheaper, because it minimizes overtime hours. It also increases the wife acceptance factor, because there is an inversely proportional causal connection between detailed planning and drywall lumps.
The main advantages of catalog houses lie, by the way, in the “maturity through series” (otherwise my advice about extending the wheelbase would be nonsense). There are cost advantages – but different than little Fritz thinks. The cost advantages from type statics benefit the customer’s calculation regarding the price level, those from “series routine” regarding price predictability. Cost advantages from volume bonuses for heat pumps or the like also exist, but they don’t lower the price, they increase the margin. Maturity reduces complications and also saves money over time. The main advantage of the series model is the quality of the result.
That is probably an argument against the big names which one can never recall often enough. But legal departments are not a cost block; they are quasi self-financing like service phase 5. Unlike marketing expenses, which are mainly recouped through deception thanks to vague terms and builder’s positions. The expensive advertising can never and by no means be carried solely by volume bonuses for building technology.
And apparently you have also misinterpreted some of my posts here and elsewhere. We can gladly clear that up, just give me a call.
Catalog houses are designed according to the motto "one size fits all" for normal families. This coin has two sides as usual: they fit like a Golf for Meiermüllerschulzes – but the downside is that a third child and/or a second home office immediately cause you to fall out of this mainstream framework. Catalog houses are budget-oriented and tailored to average earners: so they lack flexible buffering spaces. Accordingly, frustration is practically guaranteed if you want/need to tinker in one (or even two!) additional rooms. I have already discussed the way out here and in "Changing a floor plan in size": namely not trying to reallocate a catalog house to a more suitable overall size, but rather to “extend the wheelbase” of a smaller model.
The role of a freelance architect is completely misunderstood if you see them as a floor plan originality officer – "forget the ring – the ring is junk, ..." (Mel Brooks in "Spaceballs"). The architect’s skill shows in service phase 5. It is (after the dough proof phase) the second crucial step to securing the actual budget compliance of the house wish implementation – NOT the chase for the best-looking price promise!
Whoever has not only read but also understood my house-building roadmap (which – not without reason – currently receives the "Reloaded" bonus episodes, thanks again for the previous reader response) will never forego a thorough service phase 5, since here essentially lies the seed for avoiding costly mistakes. No, the architect’s mandate scope of service phases 1 to 3 does not yet qualify for successful contracting of a general contractor (GU). And that’s partly because only madmen with too much money plan everything with the architect continuously in phases 1 to 3, and only even crazier people with even more money then immediately pick a general contractor.
The approach I recommend is different (and the best advice to a private homeowner is: "imagine you were "). Namely, to first work through module A with the architect only and then, with the result (i.e., the predesign), go into the most important phase: the active pause aka “dough proof and branching.” Here the predesign sniffs the wind of the respective current market reality. Only privately insured people with platinum credit cards can afford to skip this phase and go straight from service phase 2 to phase 3 without pause. The same goes for any prejudgment of construction methods, both "massive" vs. "prefab" – thanks to for the note on the variant “’Massive’ and ‘Prefab’” – as well as for "definitely with a general contractor," "definitely self-single awarding" or similarly dangerously expensive foolishness.
The result (of the decisions in branching) then points the way forward. Not even the smartest 11ant has it in their crystal ball, but must wait for this result – four decades of planning experience change nothing about that. Only if the result suggests building with a prefabricating general contractor (this applies in stone as well as in wood) is the next installment of the architect contract the HOAI service phase 3. After that, the prefabricating GU takes over further planning, with independent advice added. This can also come from the previous architect but then leaves the established paths of the phase sequence according to the HOAI model. Or one can go to colleagues Beuler, Freyermuth, Zink or to me or one of my not so rare colleagues. If the result points toward “stone on stone,” then commissioning the architect with the full module B (i.e., phases 3 to 5) is recommended.
Yes, service phase 5 is the fee-intensive one. And no, it’s not the most expensive, quite the opposite: it is actually the most cost-neutral. Without phase 5, phases 6 and 7 have no foundation, and then one "wonders" in phase 8 about the runaway costs and/or quality, which even the most expert owner-party site manager cannot get back on track. And the GU "site manager" … LOLLL … probably no further comment needed. A service phase 5 by the author (or significant contributor of) service phase 3 does not make the build more expensive – rather cheaper, because it minimizes overtime hours. It also increases the wife acceptance factor, because there is an inversely proportional causal connection between detailed planning and drywall lumps.
The main advantages of catalog houses lie, by the way, in the “maturity through series” (otherwise my advice about extending the wheelbase would be nonsense). There are cost advantages – but different than little Fritz thinks. The cost advantages from type statics benefit the customer’s calculation regarding the price level, those from “series routine” regarding price predictability. Cost advantages from volume bonuses for heat pumps or the like also exist, but they don’t lower the price, they increase the margin. Maturity reduces complications and also saves money over time. The main advantage of the series model is the quality of the result.
By the way, a very important cost block for the really big national GUs: legal department. They have a good budget to fend off your claims.
That is probably an argument against the big names which one can never recall often enough. But legal departments are not a cost block; they are quasi self-financing like service phase 5. Unlike marketing expenses, which are mainly recouped through deception thanks to vague terms and builder’s positions. The expensive advertising can never and by no means be carried solely by volume bonuses for building technology.