Compared to the HOAI, we are paying peanuts here.
That is a simplistic calculation. Discount planners regularly start drawing too early because they lack the professional experience for the appropriate level of consultation depth in Module A. What does your planning cost if you put the medical malpractice of an unreasonable demolition of an existing basement (up to the top edge of the new basement!) on the cost center "planning without a clue"?
Perhaps that also says something about what we can expect from drafts.
It certainly says something about the self-expectations of discount planners, and with what poor performance they consider their fee as "earned."
Now we have the situation that we agreed on a lump-sum fee with our planner for service phases 1 to 4. He also did not want to separate them. Whether that speaks for or against this planner, I cannot and do not want to evaluate.
What regularly speaks against such a planner is that the scope of mandate "service phases 1 to 4" is the favorite of the " " architects; i.e., those who, simply because they never accompany a second half, never experience the moment of truth (when the construction costs are settled and their estimator is exposed as a daydreamer). Even "both-halves architects" (service phases 1 to 8) do not estimate construction costs with vascular-surgical precision, but they evaluate them at the end and estimate with increasing practice more accurately. For the clients, this practically means the essential difference between just touching the buffer or an expensive refinancing.
In a construction project with a general contractor, performing service phase 4 is regularly "twice done" if the architect has already included it – whether service phase 4 is charged by the HOAI rate or discount makes less of a difference than Little Erna (or Fritzchen) thinks. The contractual and fee-related separation between the service phases of Module A and Module B plays a far less decisive role than the hugely process-technically significant pause (> dough rest) in between. The dough rest serves to ground the clients and, together with the setting of the course, also for calibrating the project volume. Much more money can be thrown out of the window here than the (apparent) fee difference between HOAI and discount could ever amount to!
Not the second variant of the basement rule. I only know one from you. The two variants I mean are
[*]Variant: house with basement and therefore smaller footprint
[*]Variant: house without basement and therefore larger footprint
The basement rule economically leads to variant 2. The small plot and the desire for lots of green space to variant 1. In the needs clarification, we decided the latter. That can be reconsidered. [...]
We did that. Our wish was: basement plus as small a footprint as possible.
Above all, you decided it at the wrong time: it should have been between service phase 1 and service phase 2 – now it has become avoidably more expensive. I would phrase it differently, by the way:
1. Variant: space between the basement exterior walls used
2. Variant: space between L-walls instead of basement exterior walls wasted for soil,
plus above-ground volume inflated with basement replacement room
(based on the unfortunately most common case that someone raises a slab foundation)
or:
1. Variant: unnecessarily created surplus storage space and consequently excavated a pit including slope
2. Variant: only created the actually needed house connection and storage room and therefore also needed footprint
(based on the second most common case, to build a flea market goods asylum on a slab foundation plot).
Conditionally: There is a valid development plan including a text part. This must be followed. However, the plan dates from the 1930s. Since then many deviations have been approved. We can (as with §34) wish for them if we find them in the neighborhood. That is the oral statement of the responsible building authority officer.
Sorry, remembered incorrectly. But even for exemptions, the cubature of the existing building serves as a strong argument.
Can you give me an impression of what that means? I imagine it roughly like this (not necessarily in the correct order):
[*]Check the statics of the basement.
[*]Carefully dismantle the house down to the top edge of the basement.
[*]Extend the slab for the new floor plan.
[*]Insulate the old basement ceiling well (how does that work in the area of the vaulted cellar?) I see sealing the existing against the new as the biggest challenge.
[*]Place the house on the existing plinth (approx. 1 m above the currently planned ground floor level).
[*]Then 2 half floors plus a flatter roof, or as here 1 half floor with a rather very steep roof. Although 2 half floors is quite a tough requirement. It would be to examine up to which roof pitch (towards flat) the building authority would agree. 2 half floors plus 45-degree roof will certainly end about one meter too high compared to neighboring houses.
Here we are actually already exceeding the scope of the pro bono consulting here in the open consultation hour. But yes, roughly like that: check the statics of the basement # dismantle the existing building to top edge of basement # no silly patching for the wrongly planned "new" floor plan, but a new development with clean "additions" # insulation of the basement ceiling here exceptionally (partly?) above top edge of basement (not for discount planners!). If you want me to accompany you: please get in touch quickly, keep in mind the specialist doctor-like waiting list. I have no time for late risers but am happy otherwise.
who still calculates with enclosed space today?
At least the planner and also the architectural office signaled to me that this is a valid method for a first cost estimation.
Of course. Space is built, you cannot reasonably charge two-dimensionally. That would be almost like buying pears and paying for apples.
Writing down 38 and drawing 45 is also not quite right. Although I prefer the 45 or 38 over the 50 from the existing building.
I also think, like the (?) OP, that the planner just mistyped here (unfortunately, this looks differently clear on mobile and desktop). A 50° roof pitch (and especially "about 50°") has the charm of quickly creating a half floor.
From my point of view, it is becoming brutally clear here that the discount planner was probably the biggest money sink (or would still be if one does not file his work so far as tuition fees).