ᐅ Architect Agreement for a Single-Family Home – Is It Appropriate?

3.7 strikes me as amusing: when the house becomes more expensive, the architect wants a higher fee (?), instead of covering the cost overrun from their own fee (???)

Furthermore, blacking out the fee amount makes little sense and only makes it harder to assess whether a fixed fee arrangement is actually cheaper than using the fee schedule.

Gerddieter schrieb:

If you already know now that you want to build with individual contracts and the architect works as you expect – you can do it that way....
If you want to keep the option of a general contractor turnkey build open, or if you want the possibility to part ways with the architect – then only do phases 1-4 and more only if it fits later...

Being able to part ways with an architect again soon seems to be your personal favorite topic. I’m sure I’ve already pointed out (to you) that you are only allowed to build a house based on the approved building plans, but that doesn’t mean you can actually build it ;-) Working with an independent architect only through phase 4 is neither one thing nor the other – you might as well have hired a general contractor as a draftsman. An architect really proves their value in the second half (phases 5 to 8) if they are still involved. Imagine Mozart conducting Wagner operas: it would have been a disaster. It’s no different with construction. If there is uncertainty about the architect’s competence and/or the chemistry with them, ending the collaboration after phase 4 (which is not even planned here!) is far too late.

---

https://www.instagram.com/11antgmxde/
https://www.linkedin.com/company/bauen-jetzt/

11ant schrieb:

It seems that your personal favorite topic is being able to part ways with an architect again soon. I’m sure I’ve already pointed out to you ;-) that a house can only be built based on the approved plans, but that doesn’t mean it can necessarily be built well. Working with a freelance architect only up to and including service phase 4 is neither here nor there—you might just as well have hired a general contractor’s draftsman. An architect really proves their worth only if they remain involved through the second half (service phases 5 to 8). Imagine Mozart conducting Wagner’s operas: it would have been a disaster. It’s no different in construction. If there is uncertainty about the architect’s competence and/or the “chemistry” with them, exiting after service phase 4 (which isn’t even foreseen here!) is far too late.

You assume that every architect understands and is capable of handling all tasks from service phase 1 through service phase 8, but that is definitely not the case. Some are creative and able to develop functional floor plans that take into account the site and client requirements. Others are meticulous in tendering and quality assurance simply because of their character—they are detail-oriented by nature and can’t help it.

And how can a client really sense a comprehensively good architect? Actually, they can’t, since they only interact with the creative architect at the beginning. What does become apparent right away is when this architect has weaknesses in implementing the client’s wishes.

I would always recommend splitting the contracts to enable a quiet separation without major financial loss. Also, I find the contract very unfriendly to clients—not only regarding financial compensation but also because the fees are based on the HOAI framework, without reflecting the required tasks and deliverables. That’s nonsense. Sure, it might work if you pay only about €10,000 for phases 1 to 8 (about US$11,000), but for a reason that sum is blacked out!

Zaba12 schrieb:

You assume that every architect understands and can handle all construction phases from phase 1 to phase 8, but this is by no means the case. One may be creative and able to design functional floor plans that consider the site and client requirements. Another may be meticulous in preparing the tender documents and quality control simply because of their careful nature and cannot do otherwise.

First of all, thank you for this suggestion on contributing to this topic. For every GOOD architect, it is indeed true that they either have a solid command of their profession across all phases of service or are aware of their weaknesses and openly acknowledge them. I myself (not an architect) am blessed or burdened, depending on your perspective, by the fact that my skills as a diagnostician differ by several octaves from those as a practitioner.

I do not believe that every architect can provide an accurate self-assessment in this regard. I have actually advised NOT to engage Mr. Uncertain straight through to the final phase. Rather, I concluded by recommending that if you are unsure, you should plan for a much earlier cutoff. Commissioning only phases 1 and 2 initially could be a viable alternative.

I prefer architects who can accompany the entire project. For a single-family house, this is not a huge demand, and if someone finds the kitchen too warm, they should not try to go solo—or if they choose to do so, they should work as a creative with a reliable practitioner partner.

Zaba12 schrieb:

And how can the client identify a comprehensively good architect? Actually, they can’t, because they only have contact with the creative architect at the beginning. What they can immediately notice, however, is that this architect has weaknesses in implementing the client’s wishes.

I recommend not scheduling an introductory meeting with an architect in their office. This is a home advantage for the theorist and can, in the worst case, prevent you from recognizing their weaknesses as a practitioner. It is better to ask the architect to name their current construction sites and arrange to meet at one of those. There, they can explain their approach using a concrete example. If work is still ongoing on site, you can observe how they interact with the workers. From the workers’ expressions, you can often tell how competent and authoritative the architect is.

---

https://www.instagram.com/11antgmxde/
https://www.linkedin.com/company/bauen-jetzt/

The architectural firm we are working with this time is somewhat larger and also employs structural engineers and experienced construction managers (or works with local freelancers in these roles). Additionally, they complete the full detailed construction planning before starting the build. The details are then included in the tender and contract documents for the tradespeople, which helps to minimize surprises or problems later on. I really like that approach.

Thank you for the input so far.
Regarding point 3.7: We were told that some customers initially communicated a budget and did not want anything special, but in the end invested 50% more to have the best fittings everywhere.
I will also attach the scope of work.

xstelas schrieb:

Thank you for the input so far.
Regarding point 3.7: We were told that some customers initially communicated a budget and didn’t want anything special, but in the end, they invested 50% more to have the best finishes everywhere.
I will also add the scope of services.

What a fairy tale storyteller. Poor guy. Is he really trying to claim that he had to turn a Flair 112 into a villa and wasn’t compensated for it?