Initial consultation / Architect selection

That's exactly my question. We already had a conversation some time ago with an architect whose preferred work model is "service phases 1-4, then GC." One of the architects we are talking to next week apparently works mainly as a GC.

Your concern about ending up with the wrong one is quite justified! Choosing the right one requires luck and sense. You can already forget the first one you mentioned (service phases 1-4 - then GC). It's not about what he likes but about you. And he obviously likes to pick up the service phases where he earns good money for manageable effort. The phases after that are also well paid but harder-earned money... At least he doesn't claim up to service phase 5 and then GC - then you'd pay double...

It should remain your decision whether and from when GC.

GD

At least he doesn't claim up to service phase 5 and then general contractor - then you even pay twice...

What do you think you pay twice for?

It should remain your decision when to have a general contractor.

Yes, but not anymore in the ongoing tender. If my brother-in-law is a roofer, I tell the architect beforehand that this trade should not be tendered at all. Otherwise, I would never tell the architect when to have a general contractor and when not.

You can significantly shorten your list for the initial meeting; these are only technical framework conditions. What is your goal? Do you, like , want to avoid ending up with the wrong person or maybe prefer to find the right one?

Pay attention to sympathy as writes. Without it, nothing will come of it. It is a disqualifying factor—regardless of the price, the references, or the size of the office.

Ask within the framework of a conversation and not like an interrogation

[*]why he became an architect. Passion is important for the best results.
[*]what makes him satisfied in his work. If he credibly puts his clients at the center, that is a good sign.
[*]which of his projects is particularly close to his heart and have him justify it after his answer. If these answers fit your goals: very good.
[*]what he expects from you as clients
[*]how he proceeds to arrive at a design together. If he suggests things without really caring about your requirements, he’s out. There has to be more than “Which budget, which size, which plot, how many rooms...”

That is actually enough. When it comes to an architect, it’s like with a doctor or a lawyer: experience and training are important, but decisive is his interest in you, your project, and not just a contract value.

We ended up with an architect with 2 female employees who does much more commercial construction than private houses, had no website, and no public reviews. Everyone was incredibly excited about the project. Correspondingly, that’s how it turned out, and by the way, the price was fair. We commissioned the individual phases step by step and, starting from construction management, took everything into our own hands with the carpenter as the leading contact person and coordinator.

What do you think is paid for twice?

Service phase 5 - which is not exactly cheap. The architect who has the client's best interests at heart confirms that a general contractor cannot be dissuaded from their own construction planning... Every general contractor has "specials" - their own inexpensive staircase, the standard roof truss, etc., which they would like to include in the execution planning... The architect who made the design then sensibly takes on a control function here - costs - but not the full points of service phase 5. GD

I can only report how my architect selection went. I had two informal conversations with two architects. Both were recommended to me by good acquaintances. After that, it was a gut decision that I have not regretted almost a year later (Rohbau wurde gerade vergeben).

The architect who means well with the client confirms that a general contractor does not let himself be deterred from his own workshop planning...

But he will only not get caught if the client is satisfied with the so-called "site manager" of the general contractor and does not have site management carried out by his independent architect.

Every general contractor has "specials" - their own inexpensive laborer, the standard roof truss, etc., which they like to include in the execution planning...

With existing execution planning from the architect, I would call that fraud if the general contractor received the contract as part of the tender. Then he has to deliver and perform what was ordered. That is why I always say that only a fool goes to someone with an architect’s plan who regards plans as patient paper and spends his days laughing behind his client’s back. An architect’s plan is only so much added value as much as the author is also allowed to supervise its implementation. Half measures are foolish nonsense.