Extension and Renovation: Architect Fees Phase 1-4

The HOAI is no longer binding – just negotiate a fee with your architect.

There is an offer from the architect. What (besides weakened motivation) is the point of pushing him down on the fee? Don’t forget: when building in existing structures, you can neither use a beginner nor a planner specialized in new buildings well. It depends on skill, which has a value as well as a price. A good architect "earns" money for the client in service phase 5. As a (re)builder, you are investing in the quality of a livable investment property. Acting like a discount-addicted consumer is completely out of place here. Pushing the price without the signal of a lack of appreciation is hardly possible. But as I said, I wouldn’t take this architect anyway. Anyone who offers the scope of work for phases 1 to 4 when building in existing structures disqualifies or reveals themselves as unsuitable. Service phase 5 is the key to the second half; it decides between success and fiasco.

Describe the type of construction: is it a "one and a half story" with 70/75 sqm ground floor and converted gable roof without knee wall?

You don’t need just any architect, but explicitly one experienced in building on existing structures. And phase 5 of the service phases is especially important, you always pay for it (either as planning fees or as a learning fee for improvisation). Taking a “stamp collector” to comply with the law and awarding construction services without tendering would be naively insane.

That would not be an equivalent service; significantly less would have to be planned.

Describe the type of construction: is it a "one and a half story" with 70/75 sqm ground floor and converted gable roof without knee wall?

You don’t need just any architect, but explicitly one experienced in building on existing structures. And phase 5 of the service phases is especially important, you always pay for it (either as planning fees or as a learning fee for improvisation). Taking a “stamp collector” to comply with the law and awarding construction services without tendering would be naively insane.

That would not be an equivalent service; significantly less would have to be planned.

Good day and thank you very much for the response!

Unfortunately, a simple knee wall height extension is not possible. It becomes significantly more complex.

The house has about 55 sqm floor area (inside, exterior walls 30-40 cm) and consists of a basement, ground floor, an attic with sloped ceilings (starting at about 1.40m wall height), and a loft. This naturally means that the walls on the upper floor have to be raised and a new ceiling, as well as a new roof structure, must be constructed so that a full story is created at the loft level.

The roof is currently still a quite steep half-hipped roof.

According to his own statements, the architect now almost exclusively does conversions, as there are hardly any building plots in our area and land prices are quite high (850-1000 €/sqm). He also lives nearby. He offers in his contract optionally further construction phases afterwards, but in conversation it sounded like that is not necessarily usual.
I had thought that the execution planning would then be taken over by a timber construction company that would carry out the building project.

Regarding the construction sum for fee calculation, I had assumed that only the planned changes, i.e. the extension (+ connection to the existing building) would be calculated, since, in my opinion, it is not relevant for the planning of the extension whether, for example, the screed on the ground floor is renewed and the windows replaced or a technical room with a heat pump is set up in the basement. Perhaps that was naive of me.
We will definitely have the contract explained to us again by him.
If the project exceeds our budget, we will probably have to be content with renovating the existing building.
Best regards and thank you for your time and expertise!

The description sounds quite creepy (like an almost typical case of "a new build would have been cheaper"). Exterior walls of 30 to 40 cm would be unusual (the older among us remember *LOL* the 1920s were a time of hyperinflation and economic crisis). Typical exterior wall thicknesses were 38 cm in the basement and 25 cm on the mezzanine floor (less common: ground floor). Knee walls were extremely rare, I rather suspect that a [Drempel] is meant, but 140 cm makes me suspicious. Posting plans or alternatively pictures would be helpful. It's best to also show the property (preferably a cadastral extract, alternatively an aerial photo, image diagonal about 100 m), then we could develop extension concepts here. Adding a story here will be a [Krügerrand]-"money pit". Feel free to use my signature (but beware: specialist waiting times!).

We have completely renovated a house from 1934 and added an extension. The architect was - logically - paid for both. However, he only covered phases 1-4. After that, a site manager took over, with whom he regularly collaborates. At least in our case, this worked well because many implementation decisions were made on-site anyway. Phase 5 was virtually done in cooperation between the two, or rather, they were in very close contact. Occasionally, the site manager asked the architect for specific execution plans for certain details, but most things were resolved with the craftsmen on site. There were no difficulties with this. On the contrary, no one faced a problem that hadn't been considered beforehand since there were no concrete plans in advance anyway ;-) Both the architect and the site manager had previously renovated several buildings in our settlement; that was indeed the decisive selection criterion for us. The architect himself lives in one of these settlement houses. The individual trades were also carried out by companies active in the area. A "new build" company would certainly have been overwhelmed on this site, and quite a few things would have gone wrong because a standard approach would simply have led nowhere here.

At least in our case it worked well because many decisions regarding implementation were made on site anyway. The service phase 5 was basically done by the two in cooperation, or rather they were in very close contact. Occasionally, the site manager asked the architect for concrete execution plans for individual details, but most things were resolved with the craftsmen on site.
There were no difficulties with that. On the contrary, no one faced a problem that hadn’t been considered before since there were no concrete plans beforehand anyway ;-)

I would rather put it like this: "the difficulties that inevitably had to arise from this approach were handled by those involved with great composure." Service phase 5 is a pre-construction phase (not least because service phases 6/7 build upon it) and is therefore fundamentally not suitable to be replaced by an online phone joker dialogue. Congratulations on the success despite that, but it is not a role model — rather a textbook example of "dear children, please don’t imitate." There are many road users who manage the whole day up to the dinner table completely without seatbelt or helmet — but we should not take that as an example. If you want, consider it a Protestant quirk of mine that I don’t rely on Marian help alone.

P.S.: By the way, this is the most common misunderstanding when working on existing buildings: that one can shrink the service phases "1 to 4" to "only 4" because the building is already standing. No way. Service phase 3 is forensically even much more demanding than on the blank sheet of a new building.