modern Bauhaus, lots of glass, 170 sqm ground floor/upper floor, currently in phase 3

[RARELY have I read such nonsense. What do you think is the reason why the Building Code (Baugesetzbuch) § 34 Admissibility of projects within the contiguous built-up areas is to be applied here?

The municipality doesn't prescribe that without reason.]]

Yes, such things happen often. Rick and I had the same and were able to overturn it. So you can continue to gladly read nonsense and learn from it.

I don't find it unusual if the architect also manages construction. Then there are also structural engineering, energy consulting, TGA planning, surveying, geotechnical reports, drainage application, etc. Even if not all of these bill according to HOAI, that can certainly make up 15% of the construction sum. With chargeable costs here of 420,000 euros (net), the architect alone costs around 72,000 at rate III middle. The 92,000 should be enough, but are not set too high.

Phew, you make a lot of assumptions at once. Only the original poster can really clarify here.

Because I see neither a TGA planner in this ordinary single-family house, nor a mid-rate for the architect justified.
Also, the chargeable costs are not 420K€, but rather 330K€, based on the items from the OP in the first post. You apparently included cost group 400, which is wrong, as the architect will not plan this.

With good will, this results in fees of 50-55K€.
The 40K€ difference to the cost planning is already something that needs explaining.

But something else has to fit between "for oneself" and "against the neighbors" besides just a slap in the face.

why do you imagine that such a modern building upsets the neighbors? There are many young people who buy old houses and like the modern style. You can never do it right as a "young person" for the old residents anyway. I notice that again and again when my 75-year-old neighbor criticizes that my garbage bin doesn't align with the curb when I put it out :rolleyes:

yes, that happens often. Rick and I had that too and were able to bypass it. So you can gladly continue to read nonsense and learn from it.

I do not doubt that it can be done differently. But your way of conveying it.

I do not doubt that it can be done differently. But your way of conveying it.

yes because I consider it completely unnecessary and pointless to point out every time that a modern house does not fit into a well-established residential area. It simply is not true! The fact that the floor plan is not usable for 5 people is another matter.

Phew, you’re making a lot of assumptions at once. Only the original poster can really clarify this for us.

Because with this ordinary single-family house, I don’t see either a TGA planner or a mid-level fee for the architect justified.
Moreover, the eligible costs are not 420K€, but rather 330K€. Based on the positions from the OP in the first post. You apparently included cost group 400, which is incorrect since the architect will not plan this.

With goodwill, that results in fees of 50-55K€.
The 40K€ difference to the cost planning is already something that requires explanation.

Cost group 400 is fully considered up to 25% of cost group 300 also in the architect’s fee calculation, beyond that at 50%. Even if he does not plan it, his coordination effort is compensated with this.

And someone has to do the TGA planning for the tender, which is not an original task of the architect. How else would you obtain comparable offers?

You can of course negotiate with the architect whether a level III mid-fee is necessary. But many tasks arise regardless of the building size, whether it is 150 sqm or 300 sqm. In this respect, smaller projects are not particularly attractive proportionally.

But I’m also curious what exactly the OP includes under all of that.