Single-family house ~200 sqm with double garage on a trapezoidal plot

My buddies are civil engineers and utility technicians, they have a joint engineering office and work on industrial, school, and office buildings. They have been on construction sites for decades and simply know what to build, why, and how. During the construction progress, they were on site every week and pointed out some important issues which were then resolved. But they don’t do residential construction.

For example, they talked me out of silly ideas like "I don’t want a central ventilation system because ventilations cause mold" – yes, I really thought that years ago. They also thoroughly debunked various interior decorating fads that were once popular, like "I heard about the XYZ miracle heating system, I want that."

They are also used to the model where a customer who has had a lavish Venetian palace designed by a star architect and throws it on the table saying: "Plan this for me. I want a tank production line on the 18th floor, the building will be made of balsa wood, and even without a ventilation system it must be a passive house." They did explain to me the option of going to an architect first. What was more important for me was that they explained what is important when choosing the general contractor, examined the detailed scope of work, and so on.

It was my first house and I claim that it turned out extremely well. So to stick to the saying "the first one for the enemy, the second one for the friend, and the third one for yourself," it is definitely for a very good friend.

Taking all of it from the general contractor was also due to my wife’s risk aversion and the time pressure. I admit that when I decided to build, I was incredibly clueless – HOW clueless, I only began to understand afterwards. I didn’t know the options, had neither the strength nor the persistence to enforce the more complicated option. For me, at some point, it was just important to finally get started. In hindsight, not everything was 100% perfect, but many things have already proven to be very good.

The vast majority of contract architects are female architects working part-time during parental leave (who then get chartered or employed by the general contractor) or architects nearing retirement for whom running their own practice is no longer worthwhile. It is rarely truly due to the quality of their training or experience when expectations have to be lowered here compared to when the architect is initiated by themselves or hired (/ commissioned) directly.

What are you trying to say with that? That an architect on parental leave or early retirement suddenly forgets their training and no longer knows how to design a 2.5-story single-family house? Do you also think that a baker at 60 no longer knows how to bake rolls or that a dentist with a child forgets how to pull teeth? In my opinion, that’s all nonsense. Either I can do my job or I can’t. And just because the architect is now employed doesn’t mean they stop reading and understanding the development plan. That still belongs to the job after all.

I see it more like this: everyone can make mistakes sometimes. As long as nothing has been implemented yet, it can still be corrected. Or they are really just too stupid or not an architect at all. Then goodbye forever and finally let a professional handle it.

.... at least not everyone is allowed to call themselves an architect... calling oneself a consultant is also possible without training.

What do you want to say with that? That an architect on parental leave or early retirement suddenly forgets their training and no longer knows how to plan a 2.5-room single-family house?

Of course not, you have remarkably misunderstood me there. I was trying to explain to you that your fears are unfounded, that clients are not given architects with questionable training. My explanations were meant to clarify where the architects chartered by the general contractors (GC) come from. Independent architects are subject to the obligation to prove professional liability insurance. This professional liability insurance is too expensive to keep your office running on a shoestring while maintaining it. That is why architects who wish to work part-time in old age (or female architects on parental part-time leave) gladly switch to an employment contract, where they don’t have that burden on their shoulders. This does not harm their authorization to submit plans; it is a win-win for all parties involved (GC and architect), and in this constellation, the client is not a customer of the architectural office but of the GC. No qualification impairment is associated with this. That is why I said, "only rarely is it really due to the quality of training or experience." The problem here is the work method prescribed by the GC, "low effort" / "superficially": not advising the client to make a preliminary building inquiry that would have ensured coordination of the interpretation of height specifications. The same architect would have acted differently if independent. I do not imagine the senility of a rubber-stamp architect as the cause here.

Therefore, it is the relationship with the GC that gives the architect their quotation marks—and not, as you feared, that a draftsman was fraudulently labeled as a supposed architect.

What I have described is merely the most common constellation. There is also the two-stage model (draftsman "plans," authorized submitter with, I’d say, not quite fully alert expertise signs) or as I described above but in the variant with an independent office (but lump-sum contract, hence my wording as chartering). For good reason, I recommend as the only fully valid variant to always seek out and commission an architectural office without mediation through a GC.

Of course not, you have remarkably misunderstood me....

I don’t think so:

The problem here is the "narrow track" / "superficial" working method dictated by the general contractor:

...just because the architect is now employed, he doesn’t stop reading and understanding the development plan. That still belongs to the job after all.

I can even imagine that the client’s wish for maximum development also made the GC’s eyes gleam with the anticipation of little euros like Donald Duck’s money eyes. So maybe they just gambled on whether the matter would pass at the office and unfortunately lost.

I could even imagine that the customer's wish for maximum development also made the general contractor's eyes sparkle with little euros like Donald Duck's. So maybe they just took a gamble on whether the matter would be approved by the authority and unfortunately it failed.

Unfortunately, that is "not unlikely," which is why I also urged the original poster to reconsider this "customer's wish for maximum development" rather than, quite rightly, hitting the same wall with the next architect. But I also think...

And just because the architect is now employed, he doesn’t stop reading and understanding the development plan.

... that here the development plan cannot be read and understood like this without coordination, as the building authority interprets it, and/or that in this case constellation it is not entirely clear, and...

That still belongs to the job, after all.

... that it would only be part of the job to advise a building inquiry autonomously in this case—and not under the general contractor's assignment / marching orders.