Floor plan single-family house, 2 full floors, approx. 170 sqm, slight hillside location

Unfortunately, you have largely concealed the old stock again. But at least now it looks further. However, the aerial photo is only moderately suitable for assessing heights.

What is the old stock important for?

Unfortunately, you have largely concealed the old stock again. But at least now it looks further. However, the aerial photo is only moderately suitable for assessing heights.

... but rather? - I would not have expected a former practitioner, and I am all the more amazed at fantasy measurements.

Looking brings little, listening and smelling more likely. Yes, leaving it out is not the worst option.

I suggested a professional approach and am still missing your response to it. Feedback from family is usually from laypeople – except that they wish you a home of your own and find this or that detail nice, I do not expect anything there. How many plan-reading experts are you expecting to visit over Christmas?

Sorry, your logic seemed a bit strange to me as well, if I talk to the architect on the phone, I do not know him in person. So I initially ignored the professional approach. If I understand you correctly, you suggested throwing the draft in the bin and looking for a new architect. But how do I find one then? Recommendations from laypeople are also out of the question (I don’t even dare to think about Google reviews right now). And I myself, also a layperson, cannot tell after an initial conversation whether someone "has what it takes." I could go through the Yellow Pages by architects, maybe alphabetically, and always have a draft made (for which four-digit amounts would be due each time), but unfortunately I do not have a money printing machine or anything like that. So what is the recommended procedure then?

What is the existing stock important for?

You want assessments and find people here who can interpret the relevant information. Some of these actually prove to be insignificant even for experts. But that can only be assessed once you know them. Building ground after demolition behaves differently than virgin soil.

sorry, the somewhat strange logic in my opinion also came from you, if I talk to the architect on the phone, then I don't really know him.

You spoke of a possible on-site appointment in such a way that the interpretation was not far-fetched that the planner may have developed his ideas with you so far only by remote diagnosis. Every prospective builder finds their planner differently, and we have already encountered all sorts of things here, including some oddballs. The internet is full of draftsmen and architecture students offering their services via classifieds.

I initially ignored the proper procedure.

And from your descriptions, I had the impression that the planner also ignored the proper procedure (and I have not gotten rid of this impression so far).

If I understand you correctly, you suggested to throw the design in the bin and look for a new architect.

No. I suggested developing the design properly (basic evaluation, creating a room program, qualifying the room program, conceptual development, building form development) and thus arriving at a preliminary design. From the shown design, I do not get the impression that it came about in this way. Rather, it seems they started right away with the design and if that is not a hit from the first shot, then it was bent until the satisfaction of the builder steadily rises. Just like many young architects of the digital native generation do with FPS-house-designer software. Your planner has not left a competent impression on me (independent building consultant) and several discussion participants (there are at least in the core of the community many interested laypeople who have already become experienced builders), yes, that cannot be concealed.

I can go through the Yellow Pages by architects, maybe alphabetically, and always have a design made (for which four-digit sums are due each time), but unfortunately I don’t have a money printing machine or anything like that.

Do you seriously invest four-digit amounts each time in what I would call “applications” of your planner candidates?

What is the recommended procedure then?

See “A house-building roadmap, also for you: the HOAI phase model!”: Approach an architect; if he convinces as a good listener, commission service phases 1 and 2 (with the option to continue with him after the resting phase); then resting phase and setting the course and depending on the result continue stubbornly or flexibly to service phase 3 or 5 or 8. The flowchart is practically interactive.

Are you seriously investing four-figure amounts each time in what I would call "applications" of your planner candidates?

Sorry, I think you want to say that with an architect you get a free acquisition meeting and then can sufficiently assess the situation to decide on an "applicant," but this statement triggers me a bit. The OP spoke of design and I can understand that you only get high confidence that it will work with the architect after a first preliminary design. And to see the preliminary design, you have to commission service phases 1-2. With the current construction costs, that is not possible for ~1000 euros as far as I know. If you have commissioned service phases 1-2, it is a matter of goodwill or lawyers whether you can get away with less than the full fee for service phases 1-2 (and according to HOAI we quickly get to 5000 euros for a normal single-family house). If you realize it does not fit and only barely escape the hit of the fee for service phases 1-2, then the mess and the spending start all over again next time, because certainly no architect takes over from service phase 3.

With an architect I was able to have a preliminary talk with (who only wanted to bill by the hour and "usually comes out below HOAI, but can only offer service phases 1-4 because currently too much work"), the initial meeting alone, in which I spent about 2 hours mostly explaining my setting and barely received enough input from the architect's side to even roughly assess the person, cost roughly 450 euros gross. Unfortunately, I also did not reject the nonsensical proposal to add the co-owner (energy consultant) for half an hour to discuss the passive house topic, only for both of them to then tell me that they have actually never built a passive house before (it was only on the homepage because their now retired father—an established local eco-architect—had gained experience as a previous owner). The architect with whom I had a first meeting before that also wanted money right away (although the hourly rate was half as much) and on the phone he basically snapped at me right after the "hello" because I didn't immediately come up with an exact construction budget. Only the third one didn't want to be paid from minute 1 and even showed us one of his houses.

Alternatively, you can of course bill by the hour, but I don't think you get away with less than a four-figure sum that way.

Maybe in the current economic phase architects are somewhat more generous with their valuable acquisition time, but these were my experiences at the beginning of 2022.

And yes (to get ahead of that), of course there are also construction coaches or experts with whom you could find the right architect. And ideally you should also commission a specialist lawyer to check the architect’s contract. But where does that lead if you follow this "Quis custodiet ipsos custodes?" logic? Also rather into four-figure regions.

Personally, I also value being paid for my working time... but how much money you can lose in this service phase -1 already fits in for me in the gallery of the many absurdities on the topic of "building" (of which I only know the others in theory).

I can't really understand your approach. When looking for the right architect, the first thing I ask is whether they have ever built a house similar to what I want. If the answer is "yes," then I ask to see the references. In my opinion, a conversation before that doesn't make any sense. Only if the references convince me would I be willing to spend money. Until then, quite a few of your wrong choices have already been filtered out.

I can understand that one only gains high confidence whether things will work out with the architect after the first preliminary draft. And to see the preliminary draft, you have to commission service phases 1-2.

This very "Module A" (as it is called in my "A house-building roadmap, also for you: the HOAI phase model!") should also provide clarity on whether the architect is the right person to continue with - but not whether you will come together at all. That rather goes like this ...

When looking for the right architect [...] I ask to see the references.

... but not like this ...

The first meeting alone, where I mostly spent about 2 hours explaining my setting and hardly received enough input from the architect's side to even roughly assess the person, cost me around 450 euros gross.

Sorry, I think you want to suggest that one gets a free acquisition meeting with the architect and can then sufficiently assess the situation to decide on an "applicant," but this statement triggers me a bit. The OP spoke of a design

... and apparently assumes that only after a design (i.e., a multiple of what you wasted as tuition fees) can one see whether the architect is suitable for the task. That does not have to be the case, because ...

And yes (to say this upfront), of course there are building coaches or experts with whom one may find the right architect.

I know, I am one. So a freelance building advisor and finder of architects, construction companies, and experts. Even before that, one can find out extensively and free of charge whether one even wants such advice and which professionals I should look for – not everyone needs or wants the "full menu." What shocked me most, however, was that the OP apparently encountered representatives of the "let's see" type – both with the one he took and with those he would rather not have tried at all – who start directly with designs instead of starting before designing and then methodically going through a classic preliminary draft phase before developing the design. So not basics – conception – preliminary draft – design, but quarter-final drafts à la Infinite Monkey and so on (in principle learning to design with the client as coach of the young architect). So basically puzzling instead of designing. Ouch.

Yes, of course that's true, if you commission service phases 1-2, then you should have come together already, and this keeps the costs within limits, even if every candidate demands the same amount of money. But I stick to my point: such an initial meeting only gives you low confidence. Whether the great reference house was created using the aforementioned professional approach or through iterative trial and error until the client gave up, you won't be able to tell from the house itself (at least I couldn't). You can of course ask how the architect will proceed... but then you quickly get into this interview mode, like you know from job interviews (and those are also only conditionally meaningful – although considering what you often hear about botched cost estimates, it wouldn't be bad if the architect can well answer the question about the number of piano tuners in Chicago).

I can't quite follow your approach. When looking for the right architect, I first ask if they have ever built a house similar to my wishes. If they then say "yes," I ask to see the references. Before that, in my opinion, a conversation makes no sense at all. Only if the references convince me would I be willing to spend money. Until then, several of your mistakes would already have been filtered out.

To clear my name: it was a bit more complex. It was the architecture firm with the most experience in energy efficiency in the area, and the website said "Passive House". So I assumed something there. Sure, I will hold back on assumptions in the future, but the firm was still a strong candidate in terms of suitability and could have worked out under different acquisition/fee conditions.

The first two architects framed it like this, in the sense of "you pay, because you also get some information" (well, a few), so it was obvious to try to check their competence and suitability on the basis of my requirements and my setting and hope to get something out of it. But that of course overloads the 1–2 hour initial conversation (even at maximum speaking speed).

If you already bring a quota of competence and taste, then references are certainly a very good indicator. You can gather a bit of half-knowledge from the internet, but taste develops only very slowly (or maybe that’s just me). You might then just be able to distinguish the solid single-family house workhorse from the BDA patissier. Sure, if it must be exactly a modern half-timbered house, then it would be interesting to know if such a thing has been built before. But with a normal single-family house: whether three-gable house, corridor house, or hipped roof... can you only trust an architect to pull that off if they also have references for it?

I hope this answer is forgiven. I actually just want to hang on the OP in his thread with my only somewhat relevant experiences.