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

Can anyone casually recommend an architect around Munich (who ideally knows the BayBO and is able to read development plans correctly)?

Is it that bad that you need a new architect right away?
Without reading all the posts now: wasn’t it the case that you know exactly what you want to get out of the property (I mean, who voluntarily builds 4 floors?) and the architect was your long arm?

However, the faulty setback area in the east breaks the planning’s neck.
So we are back to square one (but hopefully significantly wiser now).
Can anyone randomly recommend an architect around Munich (who ideally knows the BayBO and is able to correctly read development plans)?

As you know, I find architects professionally, see post #39.

Do you want to send him to hell right away because of this?

Yes, of course:

Quick update. After much fiddling with the floor plan, the building application was submitted a few months ago. Floor plan as in #1 with some minor changes.
Result: building application in this form is not approvable. Architect miscalculated the setback areas and furthermore used the wrong reference point for the building height. The latter point might still be manageable.

If I remember correctly, the contract architect of a still uncontracted general contractor was at work here, and the quality of the planning and the "result" (in the sense of the non-approvable design) speaks for itself. I have already pointed out some sloppy botched details, without any claim to completeness. The situation here is that the clients pursue a construction intention that involves a building volume that is higher compared to the existing building (and the neighborhood). Something like this one (as the Bavarians nicely say) "never ever" does without securing oneself by means of a preliminary building inquiry to be on an approvable course. This obviously did not happen here – pushing the planning to the execution level was a waste of time for everyone involved. Here, the typical "starting off in third gear" for general contractor planning becomes apparent and takes its revenge – if handled correctly, the current gain in insight would already have occurred in "Module A." The disastrous disappointment is a "sure" consequence of the unprofessional approach (for which, of course, a building client can hardly be entirely blameless). A self-critical adjustment of the expectations within and to a realistic framework is required here before a new broom can sweep better.

I am known to find architects professionally relevant, see post #39.

Yes, of course:

If I remember correctly, the contract architect of a general contractor not yet contracted was at work here, and the quality of the planning and the "result" (in terms of the non-approvable design) speak for themselves. I had already pointed out some sloppy, botched details without claiming to be exhaustive. The situation here is that the clients are pursuing a building intention that involves a building volume higher compared to the existing building (and the neighborhood). Something like that one (as the Bavarians so nicely say) "never ever" does without securing oneself with a preliminary building inquiry, to be on an approvable course. This obviously did not happen here – pushing the planning down to the execution level was a waste of time for all involved. This shows and punishes the typical "starting in third gear" approach of general contractor planning – if done correctly, the current insight would have already occurred in "Module A." The disastrous disappointment is a "certain" consequence of the unprofessional approach (for which, of course, a client group can hardly be blameless). Here, a self-critical adjustment of expectations within and in a realistic framework is necessary before a new broom can sweep better.

Beautifully summarized and really giving a client lying on the ground another strong blow. (shaking head)

Beautifully summarized and really giving a hard time to a homeowner lying on the ground.

Exactly, namely giving another valuable push away from the wrong direction.

(shaking head)

Why is that? I am a consultant, not a masseur. My job is to advise building families well into their own home. If I have the feeling that a homeowner is not sufficiently aware of their own contribution to a disaster and would, with the attitude "the idiot miscalculated," go to another architect named in the same unchanged approach, then new disappointment would be created and new time wasted. What kind of a jerk would I be if I shone by getting off lightly as a nice shoulder patter? Medicine that tastes good doesn't help. And it remains the case that you don’t get "dishwasher-proof" quality from a general contractor contract architect – even if he is not an all-inclusive planner and you get a separate receipt for his services. After all, the discount price (of the planning service) has to come from somewhere. That’s why I only look for architects without quotation marks ;-)

And it remains the case that you do not get "dishwasher-proof" quality from a general contractor contract architect - even if they are not an inclusive planner and you receive a separate receipt for their services. The discount price (for the planning service) has to come from somewhere. That’s why I only look for architects without quotation marks ;-)

I can accept that there are architects in different price categories. But one should be able to expect even from an average general contractor architect that they can design a 2.5-story house according to land-use plan specifications. When exactly does the "average" architect start otherwise? A single-family house is pretty much the lowest category, isn't it? Below that is only catalog houses.

I can still agree that there are architects of different price categories.

Above all, there are architects of different performance categories, but even more different are the top-level marching orders. For the general contractor, this is directed at his employed or contract architects: "Don’t scare away my clients with your pessimism," followed by "Don’t disturb the quick processing," and "whoever brakes, loses."

But one should be able to expect even a standard general contractor architect to plan a 2.5 according to zoning plan specifications. When exactly does the "average" architect start otherwise?

The independent architect, directly engaged and mandated by the client, starts from the very beginning—that is, he starts in first gear and not third. He takes the time to read the entire zoning plan (not just the usage template) and recommends a preliminary building inquiry at the slightest suspicion that it is required. Here he would have clearly seen indications for that.

A single-family house is pretty much the lowest category, isn’t it? Below that is only a catalog house.

"Isn’t it?" is the correct answer. By the way, a catalog house is neither simpler nor free of work for an architect, but merely significantly more safely and successfully buildable with few complications. The general contractor architect is primarily cheaper because he omits "Module A," shrinks performance phase 5 to the barest minimum (and significantly saves on the fee share through the special deal, which saves liability insurance costs).