Comparability of costs Architect vs. General Contractor

In the case of a owner-occupied standard single-family house, it seems to me like an unnecessary cherry on top. In rented multi-family residential buildings, one cannot rely on tenants to report defects without potential rent reduction, that is a different league.

Hey, we have now also decided to build with an architect... Now the first meeting with one is scheduled...

Assuming everything fits and we come together....
We want to commission the complete service phases 1-8...

How does this usually work? When is the contract signed?
Right at the beginning for all service phases or first 1-4 and then another contract afterwards?
Is it signed only after the design is created? Or does the architect want to have it beforehand?

Maybe he prepares something for us and despite several changes we don’t come to a figure, for example. Or after a few months of planning, you realize that you just can’t work together... etc...

What is the normal process?

Thank you

Hey, we have now also decided to build with an architect... The first meeting with one is coming up now... [...] Maybe he will create something for us and despite several changes, we don't agree on a price, for example. Or after a few months of planning, you realize that you just don't work well together... etc...

Then save yourself the restless night, you don’t have to sign anything after the introductory meeting. There is also no early bird or volume discount; the price for each service phase is the same whether you book them individually or the full package at once. Make a contract for the basic evaluation and preliminary design, and later one or several extension contracts. After the first meeting, you have a first impression, and I consider one or two weeks of reflection time before signing the contract to be fair. That means you have the introductory meeting and the reflection period as two stages to form your impression if he is the right one, and the results at the point of a "finished preliminary design" as the third. That should be enough to be clear afterwards if you want to proceed together. After that, I would only make one further supplementary/extension module because, in my opinion, approval planning, detailed planning, and construction supervision are not reasonably separable (without giving up part of the advantage compared to a drafter planning). Between the two contracts/contract parts, you can again take two weeks of reflection time. If afterwards the vote of both spouses is the same, that should be enough security even for the most anxious.

Then save yourself the restless night, you don't have to sign anything after the introductory meeting. There is also no early bird or quantity discount; the price for each service phase is the same whether you book them individually or the entire package at once. Make a contract for basic evaluation and preliminary design, and later one or more extension contracts. After the initial meeting, you get a first impression, and one or two weeks of consideration time before the contract I consider fair. That means you have the first meeting and the consideration time as two steps for your impression of whether he is the right one, and the results at the point "finished preliminary design" as the third. That should be enough to be clear afterwards whether you want to proceed together. After that, I would only do one further supplementary/extension module, because approval planning, detailed planning, and construction supervision are, in my opinion, not sensibly separable (without giving up part of the advantage compared to a drafting clerk planning). Between the two contracts / contract parts, you can put in another two weeks of consideration time. If after that the vote of both spouses is the same, that should be enough security even for scaredy-cats.

Okay, thanks for the tips.. Let's see if the architect sees it the same way... If he wants to immediately serve me a contract for all service phases, at least I know that there’s another way.. Thanks

Of course, no architect (who as a creative might already have the finished house swirling in his head after the first meeting) wants clients who are unsure about what they want and might back out halfway, then take his approval plans to a general contractor who builds shameful rubbish based on these plans. But you can convey in the conversation that this is not the motive for dividing the contract parts.

Of course, no architect (who as a creative might already have the finished house in mind after the first meeting) wants clients who don't know if they want to build and might drop out halfway, then take his approved plans to a general contractor who will build disgraceful rubbish based on those plans. But you can convey in the conversation that this is not the reason for the division of the contract parts.

Understandable, makes sense.. I will bring this up with everyone why we decided on an architect. Thx