How high does the house rise - how high to pile up earth (cellar depth low)?

What does he actually say about it? Have you already addressed the problem?

No. The problem to this extent has been known to me since the opening of this thread, that is, yesterday.

The architect = architect did that after all, if I understand the OP's explanations. Talked together about the drainage issue and agreed together that the house should be raised.

What is being criticized is not the drainage, but the access to the terrace.

No. The problem of this scale has been known to me since the opening of this thread, that is, yesterday.

In this case, it helps to take a few days to think through all aspects carefully and gather arguments before approaching the man. One should also have a preferred solution in mind and sleep on it once or twice to remain objective. It would also be helpful to meet directly on the construction site. These terrace doors in the sky give such an embarrassing impression – if he stands in front of them, he will probably give in more easily. Apart from that, it will probably become clear to him that a photo like that would look very bad on his reference page. ;)

The complaint is not about the drainage, but about the access to the terrace.

But plans were made for this as well, which the original poster approved. At least, that’s what I saw at the beginning of the thread. Of course, one can criticize it now, but a plan was developed together that led to the current result. At the beginning, during the planning phase – and this was really obvious – the terrain modeling should have been discussed and not just accepted or even agreed to.

One should have talked about the terrain modeling at the beginning as part of the planning – and that was really obvious – and not accepted it or even had to agree to it.

As said, it is certainly difficult to enforce claims here because everything was approved. Nevertheless, the question remains whether the elevation levels here can be interpreted as a planning error. In any case, it is highly embarrassing for an experienced architect. Presumably, the damage to reputation would be the best bargaining chip. Unless he plans to retire soon, this should be somewhat valuable to him given the expected market situation.

I don’t find the matter that clear. In a new build, a certified professional who is authorized to create plans must necessarily be involved, who has to stand behind the design. The service, for example, of an architect corresponds in my opinion to a consulting service for which he is also liable. [...]
if the client invests in a building due to incorrect advice that he actually does not want, the architect is obliged to pay damages.

I agree with you on that, however, the first thing to clarify here would be whether an architect’s contract existed. The general contractor (GU), who is regularly a master bricklayer, often has the authorization to submit plans themselves, a basis was not incorrectly determined here, and a performance phase 1 was presumably not even part of the commissioned services. Furthermore, in this case the original poster (OP) is, through his own on-site work, in a way both client and co-contractor of the overall project. This case scenario could probably keep law students entertained for an entire semester.

Actually, I don’t feel like responding to your cynical, condescending post. Apparently, you find satisfaction in picking apart and venting on our case instead of contributing constructively.

The disservice was the one the GU did to you by raising the building to avoid the lift station. I already said that I am happy to contribute as constructively as the respective questioners allow me. But I cannot perform magic. By the way, I interpret your post as confirmation of my version of the summary for the readers.

but a plan was created together that led to the current outcome. At the start, within the scope of the planning – and that was really obvious – the terrain modeling should have been addressed

With a construction contract including own-site services, the general contractor (GU) in a way enters into a joint planning of the work with the client, who is regularly an amateur. I would consider it exaggerated to demand that he refuse this cooperation as a consequence. Rather, I see him acting in good faith regarding the contractual partner’s maturity, from whom he does not need to demand proof that this partner has compensated for his personal lack of expertise by getting advice. The GU may trust that an adult knows what he is doing. He does not need to have a declaration signed acknowledging that the client is aware of the objective uneconomical nature of his share of the overall work – from my point of view, he is not obliged at all to critically evaluate the client’s concept (how the client intends to perform his own services).

No matter how you look at it: the GU is in no way to blame for the OP’s ridiculous blundering. Not even in this special case, where every silent reader in their second year of study can only make a terrified Edvard Munch face.