Process Architect Floor Plan Phase 1-4

You should also set a date for the planned submission of the application in writing in the contract. Did you clearly communicate your wish to submit in March?

For us, it went a bit faster than expected so far, but we also talked to our architects at least once a week. From the first drafts to the submission, it still took almost 4 months; you do need quite a few iterations.

Now in the execution planning and tendering phase, we talk 2-3 times a week. Emails are added on top.

We did not record our "desired date" in writing. Unfortunately, as it seems to me now. We communicated the timeframe to him via email. We have to move out of our house, as the house is to be built on the property. That means we are moving into an apartment starting in May (for various reasons already May, that cannot be changed/postponed) – therefore, we wanted to submit the application by March or April. So that we can also start with the demolition.

Talking at least once a week sounds great. Is your architect proactive there, or do you mostly contact him? Thanks and best regards :)

We met twice and discussed changes. That always went quite well. But now, for example, we waited 2 weeks for an answer. I'm getting a bit impatient. There is no CAD yet. Only the floor plan in 2D, so to speak.

Does the floor plan only exist on paper? Our engineer has a special architectural CAD where he draws the floor plan in 2D, which can then be displayed in 3D. However, the 3D aspect is not the important part; the decisive point is that with a floor plan in software, changes can be made very effectively live and, for example, the room area calculation can be easily updated. And sending the floor plan with sections, etc., to the client should not take more than 5 minutes.

Calling at least once a week sounds great. Is your architect actively involved, or do you mostly reach out to them? Thanks and best regards :)

It always depends; sometimes we contact her with questions, sometimes she does. And then I always discuss the overall status, next steps, and whether she needs anything from us. I once considered establishing a weekly standing meeting, but so many ad hoc issues arise that it doesn’t seem worthwhile.

I had already suspected that the description was only symbolic in terms of content, and in reality much more words were spoken past each other. But it apparently was spoken past each other – and among other things, it was not made clear enough who the client is and who pays the music. The house is not supposed to please the architect, but the builders. So his professional advice should be mentioned, but no more than that, and a windbreak should be planned if the builders so wish. Architect CAD typically works in 3D, but in a way only internally within the program; the plan drawings (except for the isometry, which is hardly used in both the approval and execution planning) are typically only extracted in 2D. 3D in client discussions is not part of the planning (as far as we are talking here about a single-family house and not a museum building), but part of entertaining the client. And this is exactly where the problem lies when builders expect the same approach from an architect with sevenfold methodical changes of the floor plans etc. as from the draftsman of the general contractor: then the house is planned on two tracks, i.e. once in an architect CAD for the technical planning process and a clone in the parallel world of a software focused on “visualization at layman’s eye level.” The consequence is then inevitably that transcribing every change from the professional planning program into the layman discussion program costs unnecessary time. Whoever wants to speed up the architect’s work therefore does MAXIMUM two rounds of changes instead of an eternal back and forth, sidestep and chachacha. But: beforehand one slams the table once hard when the architect wants to build HIS house instead of THAT OF THE CLIENT!

Moreover, the “misuse” of the digitality of today’s planning by printing out every change discussion interim status ultimately leads to the risk of later having an unmanageably large number of version states in circulation; and consequently the utility installer from the electricity company comes and installs his box in the wrong place because that was the correct place in an earlier plan status. This kind of “planning” via messenger ping-pong leads to nothing but two problems: namely the rise of a new complication category “defects through planning” and to planning processes that stretch out like chewing gum.

The communication with the architect is based on the need and can be planned. When will a new status update be available? What needs to be discussed by when? By when must decisions be made? You have a time framework. Calculate together backwards from the move-in date, and a schedule will emerge that can be detailed. We had intended to take plenty of time and to enjoy the planning and construction period. My wife and I had phases of patience and impatience that were hardly understandable for the architect. I expected some answers with the excited anticipation of a child awaiting birthday presents - this creates a demand on the architect that is hardly attainable. We talked and laughed about that. Although we took our time, we had a plan that needed several adjustments but ultimately provided an excellent basis for communication as well. Also for our own expectations.

Darauf nur seine Antwort, dass man heutzutage keinen Windfang mehr baut...

I find that highly alarming - I hope he had more to say than just that. It does not matter what "one" does today; what counts is what the client wants to achieve. Here, a good architect helps creatively and in an advisory capacity. Whether an entrance vestibule is built or not—the client’s goals are leading.

Im übrigen führt der "Mißbrauch" der Digitalität des heutigen Planens zum Ausdrucken jedes Änderungsdiskussionszwischenstandes ursächlich zu der Gefahr, nachher unübersichtlich viele Versionsstände im Umlauf zu haben

That should be pinned up very prominently.

It is not the change itself. We like the floor plan.

I am glad to hear that.

I would prefer not to share the floor plan for now. My husband is against it ;-)

That is a pity. But I can understand.

Thank you. I wish you much success. I’m keeping my fingers crossed that the cooperation will improve.

Don’t forget, the customer is always right. ;)