Floor plan design single-family house approx. 170 m² + attic as a modern clinker house

All the technology to the attic, that's how we'll do it. Then you can significantly reduce the technical room downstairs. Change the children's bathroom to the utility room.

We pay for 160 sqm plus attic (not fully developed) 450kEUR incl. VAT. Also with clinker brick (and two small plastered areas). Without flooring in living rooms and without painting work.

Alone €60,000 of that is the "turnkey surcharge" by the general contractor. You can actually get cheaper with individual awarding through the architect, right?! Or am I overlooking something here.

Has the general contractor separately listed their risk of the purchase price with the subcontractors in the offer?????
If it is supposed to be good and cheap, you do a proper classic tender. Everything else is gambling (and typically backfires in the end).

So far we have not asked alternative providers. Our plan was rather first to reduce the floor plan again and then inquire more broadly. I think it is better to inquire directly with an adjusted floor plan than to later try to push down the price by a reduction.

I am very shocked about your approach (which is highly efficient if the goal is to burn as much money as possible first in planning dead ends and then in awarding).

You initially wrote that you wanted to have an architect you commissioned yourself do design phases "1 to 4". However, I now have the impression it was rather "3 to 4" (or 1, 3 and 4), and phase 2 was omitted. What you are showing are already quite advanced plans, and these will have consumed corresponding fees. You get none of that back if this is now filed away in the family album and downsized and redone. Getting the size right would have been the core of design phase 2! - It should also have become clear that a loft extension reserve isn’t free :-(

By the way, you can’t just "shrink" a floor plan like that: you can only cut fat where there is fat. Any other reduction would result in bottlenecks.

My advice would be that you go to a building navigator (I’m far from the only one, by searching the forum with the keyword "Heidelberg" you can also find an engineering firm whose planning costs are often also charged via the general contractor) and/or you have an architect, who even wins the favor of before judgment, redo design phases 2 and 3, then look for a general contractor with that and have them take over from design phase 4 onwards. By now you should be able to realize that your house is unsuitable for skipping design phase 5.

So the general contractor openly presents us with the invoices from the trades and adds 10% on top at the end. Transparent, but apparently expensive. Our architect would charge around €40k for service phases 5-8. This speaks in favor of hiring the architect (I would also prefer to have someone "on my side").

The approach looks perhaps unfortunate when summarized on a few pages, but it has grown historically. A few posts ago, I already mentioned that we started planning almost 2 years ago under different conditions back then. Construction costs and interest rates have increased, subsidies are no longer available, so we have to and want to react and now adjust our planning. We have commissioned the architect so far for service phases 1-4. I vaguely remember service phase 2; presumably, one would now better know what is needed. In March, we had a cost estimate from our architect, and we were at €550k including incidental construction costs. Due to another project in our extended environment, we have now asked one general contractor with our plans to get a current price picture.

Actually, I would now approach our architect again and take a step back together towards service phase 2. Is it sensible to burn all bridges here and hire another architect? Then any fees paid so far would really be lost, especially since I actually appreciate the style of our architect (but of course, I do not know any other).

One thing I do not quite understand: You say general contractor from service phase 4. So already service phase 4 with the general contractor? And then you say that service phase 5 is indispensable. But then that would also be in the hands of the general contractor? So not to be misunderstood, we are not committed to building with a general contractor; actually, I find individual contracting more reasonable. And: Who is ? :) And2: How exactly does a construction pilot help me in my situation now, except that I open another fee sink here? And3: Thanks for your support.

Actually, I would now approach our architect and together with him take a step back towards service phase 2. Is it sensible here to burn all bridges and take another architect?

You have already given the answer yourself:

I have rather vague memories of service phase 2,

Of course, I would go many miles further away from an architect about whom no memories remain from the heated discussions of service phase 2 than for a Marlboro – absolutely clear!

Then all the fees paid so far would really be lost, especially since I actually quite appreciate the style of our architect (but of course don’t know any other)

By that you presumably mean / fear to feel understood in terms of design style?
For already “earned” fee phases you will get no corrections (or discount for the new edition) – so better look for an architect straight away who can also do and will do what one must be able to expect from him.

One thing I don’t quite understand: You say general contractor from service phase 4. So already service phase 4 with the GC? And then you say that service phase 5 is indispensable. But that would then also be in the hands of the GC? So don’t get me wrong, we are not fixed on building with a GC, I actually find individual contracting more reasonable.
And: Who is @Gerddieter? :)
And2: Exactly how does a construction pilot help me in my situation now, except that I open another fee sink here?
And3: Thanks for your help.

Always gladly, and “in exchange for blue tiles” there is still plenty more of that. However, a “further fee sink” doesn’t sound nice at all; I tend to earn my money very thoroughly and usefully and suspect colleagues do so too. Gerddieter is a forum member with a keen eye on the budget competence of architects.

As far as one approaches one’s building project in a construction-method-neutral way – that is being open to both “brick by brick” and prefabricated houses (in wood or stone) – the “prefab house expert” and myself agree that bringing service phase 4 along already leads to double completion and double payment of this phase. This actually belongs to a properly processed service phase 2, to conclude “Module A” (see my “house construction roadmap”) with a decision on how to proceed afterwards: firstly with the same architect or another, and secondly “in principle with a GC” (then service phase 3 follows individually) or “with suitable bidders including GC” (then the full modules B and C follow, and thus cooperation with the architect up to and including service phase 8). Searching for suitable providers is helped by a construction pilot (the earlier, the better), who coaches those planning to build regarding the aforementioned fundamental decision.

In any case, the results of service phase 4 are not yet suitable to actually build a house with them (one may only, but cannot). GC lackeys tend to limit the detailed planning to reinforcement and formwork plans – the result includes, among other things, “stigmas” in the form of drywall bumps around all kinds of piping. Disfiguring the appearance of one’s dream house with such “scratches” hits the Jette league (also your house) naturally with more force than in the “Flair class.” So: even if you decide in favor of the GC “path” of fulfilling your dream house, you should not value and weigh detail planning any less than the “sample selection.” A good service phase 5 will also be paid for by a GC, so you might commission the architect with service phases 2 and 3 as well as 5. But now enough of the open consultation ;-)

Summary: 1. An architect who “completed” service phase 2 so carelessly would also go significantly off budget in the further course, so that even with a house shrunk by sixty or seventy square meters you would end up with more additional financing needs than you do now given the nightmares caused by price classification inquiries.
2. Now look for an architect – with or without construction pilot – either from service phases 2 to 8 or for service phases 2, 3, and 5 (in which case plus a construction-accompanying expert, see my remarks on construction managers / “construction managers”).

The fee reduction was not meant in a bad way.

I think back then in performance phase 2 we were just a bit... naive. "Oh, we would like this, and that, and an attic, large children's rooms, a sauna would be nice, ...". One could accuse the architect of not questioning us critically enough here.
We probably would have stayed within our budget at that time two years ago.

I find it hard to consider changing the architect. Especially since we didn't just look at one, but deliberately chose from several here. Single-family houses don't seem to be the favorite topic in general, especially larger firms that apparently prefer drawing opera houses were also very intimidating in price and uninterested.

@11ant Honorarsenke was not meant badly

However, the terminology already carries a certain tendency to consider another fee as sunk :-(

I think, back then in service phase 2, we were simply still a bit... naive. "Oh, we would like this, and that, and an attic, a large children's room, a sauna would be nice,...". One could blame the architect for not having questioned us critically enough here.

Naivety is a layman’s privilege, the professional has to be professional! The elaborates shown and your explanations make me suspect that we are dealing here with a fairly typical case of "making it easy for the architect, rushing through the basics, and pushing him to a premature beautification". Since I also perceive a similar claim on the architect and the result, it might be enlightening for you to look into the threads by and by .

The thought of changing the architect is difficult for me. Especially since we didn’t just look at one, but consciously made a selection from several here.

How does that reconcile, on the other hand, with

(but of course I don’t know any other)

? - I consider changing the architect here urgently necessary, as he seems to be one of those Sunday painters, whose kind so valuably acts as a thorn in the side here. Especially since you feel the desire for budget discipline, his talents probably have a rather counterproductive focus ;-)