ᐅ The architect wants to handle only design phases 1 through 4.

Maulwurfbau schrieb:

The approval (4) and execution (5) should then be done by the timber builder, right? Because they also construct and know their system down to the millimeter?

To put it briefly: you understood it correctly in principle, and your reasoning is acceptable as it stands.

Maulwurfbau schrieb:

My own constructed example: The architect plans up to approval. The building authority grants permission, but then the timber builder says, okay, I have to carry out the work differently, and that would have needed a different approval.

If you went to an architect who is mostly experienced with masonry construction, this would be the most frequently assessed risk. In this respect, your above reasoning is appropriate. With the architect cooperative I recommended in post #5, you don’t have this problem; that’s why I recommended them here: you could say they specialize in timber frame construction from all manufacturers.

---

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

11ant schrieb:

To keep it short: you understood it correctly in the end, and the reasoning can be accepted as is.

If you had gone to a typical architect with mostly experience in masonry construction, that would have been the most commonly assessed risk. In that respect, your reasoning above is appropriate. With the architect cooperative I recommended in post #5, you won’t have this problem, which is why I recommended them here: they can be said to be specialists in timber frame prefabricated construction from all manufacturers.

Thank you very much for your explanation.

Even if I might sound a bit naive now.

The risk I described would only exist with an independent masonry architect if they also handle phase 4 and possibly phase 5, right? And then the builder suffers in the end because nothing fits.
Or is the design from/in phase 3 already significantly affected by this?

Maulwurfbau schrieb:

Thank you very much for the explanation.
Even if I might be considered stupid now.

I also thank you for pointing out where I might not have explained something clearly enough even for beginners.

Maulwurfbau schrieb:

The risk I described would only exist with an independent architect working with masonry construction if they also handle phases 4 and possibly 5, right? And then the builder ends up facing problems because nothing fits.
Or is the design in/from phase 3 already heavily affected by this?

The design of a “masonry architect” would of course already be affected by this phenomenon. However, what I advised in post #5 to readers who had not yet committed to a specific general contractor (GC) also basically applies to those who have already found their GC—whether timber or masonry: namely, to involve the GC early, already at the end of design phase 2, the preliminary design. So, even if you work with “A better Place” or other architects experienced in timber construction, include the GC before moving on to design phase 3. Also, make two architect contracts even if you only proceed through phases 1 to 3: one contract for phases 1 and 2, also called “Module A,” with an option for phase 3; and a second contract after the “resting period” covering phase 3. If you Google these terms in quotation marks (external links are not welcome here), you will find my explanations: “A Home Building Roadmap, Also for You: the HOAI Phase Model!” is a series of posts to help understand the phase model and my recommendations on how to divide the phases.

Before phase 3, I ALWAYS recommend inserting the resting period!

---

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

Yes, thank you! There's not much more to add.

Let's see if I can make it happen. It already seems to me that any approach like the one you described (independent architect plans up to XYZ, general contractor details and executes), even if not implemented exactly in every detail, is better than letting the salesperson at the timber builder do the planning.

Maulwurfbau schrieb:

Yes, thanks! Nothing more to say about that.

You’re welcome, but there’s always more to say. The source for the mentioned series of posts also explains the approach.

Maulwurfbau schrieb:

Let’s see if I can manage to implement it. It already seems to me that any approach in the direction you described (independent architect plans up to XYZ, general contractor details and executes), even if not followed exactly in every detail, is better than letting the salesperson at the timber builder do the planning.

What makes you doubt your implementation skills, and which details do you fear might be at risk of getting lost during the process? Of course, your assumption is absolutely correct: salespeople are not a wise choice as substitutes for planners. Simply because the qualifications needed for work phase 1 (preliminary design) are not adequately covered in any salesperson training—let alone the later phases. Yet the major cost spikes related to site conditions are mainly buried within work phase 1.

---

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

11ant schrieb:

Sure, but there is always more to say. The source of the mentioned series of posts also includes the approach.

What makes you doubt your implementation skills, and which details do you fear might get lost during the execution process?
Of course, you are absolutely right to assume that salespeople are not a smart choice as substitutes for planners. Mainly because the qualifications for design phase 1 are not adequately covered in any sales training, not to mention the subsequent phases; yet the biggest cost risks related to site conditions are essentially buried in design phase 1.

No, it will work out. It has already been coordinated with the architect.