Construction supervision via Bauherren-Schutzbund, Association of Private Builders, TÜV, DEKRA, independent expert surveyor, or "xyz"...?

With this way of thinking, the construct architect is driven ad absurdum...

Aside from the fact that a construction supervisor wouldn't have to be any less universal... or does a different one come for each trade? At least here on site, it is always one person...

Sebastian, this is now an absolutely unfounded claim from you, without addressing any argument. An expert must be able to do many things less (planning, drawing, tendering, etc. pp) that an architect does. Here, for example, with my neighbor who had a very well-known (and expensive) architect, there was also another person as site manager. But as with you, the "others do it that way too" is a bad argument from me.

from on the move

Oh, you just want to annoy again... you know how it is, you only look for me anyway.

It is not without reason - you are free to book an architect only up to service phase 4 and do the rest elsewhere. You yourself give that example...

But you can also book all service phases, then an additional expert is wasted money.

You can make mistakes with both the architect and the expert - no question. And it should be someone who has construction experience and not just a bookworm, who is hardly accepted on the construction site anyway.

The only one who has a personal problem is you, you can see that by the fact that you are starting with it again. I only expressed my opinion and explained that an architect is less specialized due to a larger scope of tasks. Hiring the wrong "man" for something is of course always possible, in hindsight one is always wiser.

from on the go

The expert I spoke with from the Bauherren-Schutzbund does this "on a voluntary basis" within the framework of the Schutzbund, according to his own statement.
His main occupation is in an architectural/planning office.
And I believe, apart from TÜV or DEKRA, most independent experts will again be somewhat architect-like and also perform other, especially planning-related, activities in their lives.

If it were now an architect who normally never does site supervision, then yes, practical experience might be lacking there.

Saruss, however, you just spoke about site management. But this thread is about site supervision.
To me, the difference is that site management mainly means coordinating the trades and their general execution.
However, so that nothing is overlooked here, there is also site supervision/site monitoring, which checks things at specific appointments and looks for defects.

The question of an independent person arises for Sebastian and me (at least that’s how I understand you) depending on whether one already works with a freelance, presumably independent, architect or with an architect/planner from the construction company/the general contractor.
In the first case, we consider a fourth person to be too many, in the latter case necessary.

But that is our view; yours may well be different, which is what this thread is for. It should not be about convincing others of their opinion.

Disadvantage of the freelance architect: you have to pay them first before you can get (fixed price) offers for the construction project. With, for example, a general contractor, that can be done directly, but overall it may then cost more. However, this topic is already discussed in other threads.

I think our discussion here is now deviating from the thread topic; if there is further need for discussion, we might consider opening a side channel.

Good evening

And construction supervisors never? Of course, you can double or triple secure yourself, but ultimately, in architect-driven construction, it’s senselessly wasted money – and a lack of trust towards the architect.

You want to be right no matter what, don’t you?

With that way of thinking, you drive the architect construct ad absurdum...

No – is the architect’s profession, in your view, always flawless and error-free?

Oh, you just want to annoy again... we know that, you only pick on me.

Why can’t you just let the threads where you expressed your opinion and received little agreement drop?

Not “annoying” – you’re just sulking again; nothing more, nothing less. I actually hoped you had gotten past this phase; unfortunately, you still don’t value setting things straight.

PS – keep in mind, if you want to use the report button, I want to point out to you in advance that your report will come to me.

The expert I talked to from the Bauherren-Schutzbund does this “voluntarily” within the framework of the Schutzbund, according to his own statement.

And the earth is flat; please don’t believe that statement. Voluntary means that he doesn’t get paid for his work. But you surely transferred a contribution to the Bauherren-Schutzbund, right?

And I believe, apart from those from TÜV or DEKRA, most independent experts will again be somewhat architect-like and also carry out other, primarily planning-related, activities in their lives.

You can believe that in church. Many experts registered on free portals have trained in a craft; the majority are master masons/concrete specialists or carpenters. The vast majority of them take ongoing training – you rarely find that in a settled architect.

Please ask your expert about his training and how he became an expert; I’d really be interested.

In the first case, we consider a fourth person too many; in the latter, necessary.

Apparently I have a reading deficit – why a 4th person?

Rhenish greetings