Screed uneven - defect removal refused

We are building with a general contractor, but even with an architect we would have brought in an expert. By the way, on the advice of architects who are friends of ours! Trust is good, the four-eyes principle is better! So far, I can say the money is well invested!

There are architect-designed houses in our neighborhood in the new development, eight in total. Three different architects. Seven of these houses have defects! In some cases so serious that it even went to court! An expert? Only one builder needed one, and he is safe! At first, he was laughed at; after all, he was on first-name terms with the architect and also with the companies that were chosen... everything was great. Until the day the trouble started.

For experiments, my nerves and our money are too precious. I’m happy every time an acceptance inspection goes well.

Somehow you don't really understand what the tasks of an architect are - even statements like "supervising one's own work" show that.

The architect supervises the work of the commissioned companies - and that independently.

Of course, you can have an idiot there who is hardly ever on the construction site or just doesn't want to alienate "his" craftsmen - that happens.

It's funny that allegedly an architect himself said that an expert should be involved - doesn't trust himself? That's his profession!!

And so many defective houses with you? Do you know exactly the service phases that were commissioned?

Well, everyone has to decide for themselves...

The problem is that there are all kinds. Unfortunately, the "good" architects do not wear a pointed hat that would indicate the proper and diligent execution of construction supervision. And yes, there is certainly always some kind of connection between craft businesses and the executing architect, in which the "knowing each other" results in a kind of basic trust, which may make supervision appear only superficially necessary.

As a "normal" client, one generally does not have sufficient experience to evaluate the execution of the measures. Here you can rely on the supervising architect, but you don’t have to. If you want to be sure, you put a second pair of eyes on top. I think that is completely fine and would always do it that way. But I can understand the argument that some clients want to save that money and – not entirely without reason – trust their architect’s supervision.

Basically, it is a matter of "taste" and personal willingness to take risks. I personally belong more to the "cowards" faction. I don’t have the time or the desire to deal with construction defects and their rectification more than absolutely necessary. I am Switzerland.

Thank you, that is exactly how I mean it

Somehow you don't really understand what the tasks of an architect are - even statements like "supervising one's own work" show that.

As long as you know better, everything is fine

Rhenish greetings

What did I know that this would come exactly from you... too bad, actually.