ᐅ Building with an Architect: Which Project Phases Are Useful?
Created on: 24 Jun 2013 10:07
S
Sambi1511
Hello everyone,
We are currently planning our house and are working on the design phase with our architect. Since I have never built a house before, it is quite difficult for me to estimate the required services. We know for sure that we will not be choosing a turnkey option, but will be doing a lot of the interior work ourselves.
Now I am wondering which architect service phases we actually need. I believe phases 1-5 are clear; without them, I wouldn’t get a usable plan. But beyond that, I lack experience. Are phases 6 and 7 absolutely necessary, or can I already hire a mason or roofer with the plans provided after phase 5? If the structural calculations are done based on the plan, the contractors should know what materials and specifications to work with, right?
Regarding construction management / supervision, I am also wondering whether it is more sensible to have this done by the architect or a third party. Since many trades inside the house will be done by ourselves, any necessary supervision would mostly concern the structural shell.
I would be very grateful for recommendations and experiences from other homeowners…
We are currently planning our house and are working on the design phase with our architect. Since I have never built a house before, it is quite difficult for me to estimate the required services. We know for sure that we will not be choosing a turnkey option, but will be doing a lot of the interior work ourselves.
Now I am wondering which architect service phases we actually need. I believe phases 1-5 are clear; without them, I wouldn’t get a usable plan. But beyond that, I lack experience. Are phases 6 and 7 absolutely necessary, or can I already hire a mason or roofer with the plans provided after phase 5? If the structural calculations are done based on the plan, the contractors should know what materials and specifications to work with, right?
Regarding construction management / supervision, I am also wondering whether it is more sensible to have this done by the architect or a third party. Since many trades inside the house will be done by ourselves, any necessary supervision would mostly concern the structural shell.
I would be very grateful for recommendations and experiences from other homeowners…
S
Sambi151124 Jun 2013 17:13Bauexperte schrieb:
This is always a tricky issue – surely they’re not working for free just for the fun of it? You also have to register helpers with the accident insurance; accidents can happen faster than you can say “oops.” The more important question is whether they are reliable and keep their commitments, especially regarding deadlines on site.
However, I don’t really understand your question. You have – probably for good reasons – chosen a very individual building design, fully aware that architectural costs will be higher than with a general contractor (GC) / design-build contractor. So why are you now questioning some of the service phases?
Regards, BauexperteWell, our design isn’t that unusual, but I simply want good and reliable supervision and management of the construction phases, especially because I’m not knowledgeable about many things.
We haven’t found a truly recommended general contractor (GC) here in the Lower Rhine region (Kevelaer) who could fulfill our wishes. That’s why we went to an architect.
Like with everything, you have to consider what you’re really getting for your money at some point. The construction management, which is quite a significant cost item with an architect, is very important to me. So I’ve been thinking about whether it would be better to assign that to a third party. By better, I mean that I would get better support for the same money or the same support for less money.
Just by asking this, the questions about the other service phases came up. There’s always someone who says, “If you have the plans, that’s enough – just take them to the tradespeople; the architect just costs unnecessary money.”
That’s why my question is what you really need and what you don’t….
But thanks in advance for the info!
B
Bauexperte25 Jun 2013 08:57Hello,
Best regards, Bauexperte
Sambi1511 schrieb:I find that hard to believe. Mönchengladbach (MG) is not that far away, and there are quite good building contractors (BC) there; including one of our partners we collaborate with.
We haven’t found a truly recommendable general contractor (GC) here in the Lower Rhine region (Kevelaer) who could meet our requirements.
Sambi1511 schrieb:I already addressed this question in my first response. In my opinion, it’s unlikely to be cheaper, but neutrality is maintained, which can help prevent potential conflicts during construction.
I have therefore considered whether it might be better to outsource the whole project to a third party. By better I mean getting better support for the same money or the same support at lower costs.
Sambi1511 schrieb:That’s a widespread phenomenon, unfortunately. When you look behind these statements and expect definite answers, the reality usually turns out quite differently. There are many so-called experts who think they can do it better – new housing developments are full of the results. Construction sites lasting two years or more are not uncommon.
You always know someone who says, “If you have the plans, that’s enough; just go directly to the tradesmen. An architect only costs unnecessary money.”
Best regards, Bauexperte
K
K.Brodbeck25 Jun 2013 09:04Hello Sambi,
I will speak from my perspective (as an architect).
Site supervision is expensive because it requires a lot of time to do it properly and professionally. The argument about favoritism can be justified; at the firms where I have worked, there were certain contractors we preferred, but for other reasons. If you build frequently, you will notice a huge difference between different tradespeople. One delivers clean work and meets deadlines, another no longer sticks to any agreement once the contract is signed. Another might claim additional payments for every minor change.
I would definitely recommend having a professional handle the tendering and site supervision, whether that is your architect who designed the house or a third party specialized in site management — it doesn’t matter. What is important is that someone supervises neutrally. I, as an architect, do not get paid by the contractors.
If there is no site supervision and the contractors manage themselves, a lot of shoddy work can happen. Cheaper materials might be used, and details may be simplified for the convenience of the current contractor. If this causes extra costs later on, no one cares, and once these are reported later, it is usually impossible to undo.
In my opinion, a general contractor (GC) only builds cheaper if you build exactly as offered; if you want changes afterwards, the initial savings are mostly gone!
Good luck
K.Brodbeck
Sambi1511 schrieb:
...
As with everything, you eventually have to consider what you get for your money. Especially site supervision, which is quite a significant cost item when working with an architect, is important to me. I have therefore thought about whether it would be better to assign this to a third party. By better, I mean getting better support for the same money or the same support at lower cost.
This question alone led to further questions about the other phases of service. You always know someone who says, "Once you have the plans, that's enough, just go straight to the contractors, the architect only costs unnecessary money."
So my question is what you really need and what you don’t....
But thanks already for the information.
I will speak from my perspective (as an architect).
Site supervision is expensive because it requires a lot of time to do it properly and professionally. The argument about favoritism can be justified; at the firms where I have worked, there were certain contractors we preferred, but for other reasons. If you build frequently, you will notice a huge difference between different tradespeople. One delivers clean work and meets deadlines, another no longer sticks to any agreement once the contract is signed. Another might claim additional payments for every minor change.
I would definitely recommend having a professional handle the tendering and site supervision, whether that is your architect who designed the house or a third party specialized in site management — it doesn’t matter. What is important is that someone supervises neutrally. I, as an architect, do not get paid by the contractors.
If there is no site supervision and the contractors manage themselves, a lot of shoddy work can happen. Cheaper materials might be used, and details may be simplified for the convenience of the current contractor. If this causes extra costs later on, no one cares, and once these are reported later, it is usually impossible to undo.
In my opinion, a general contractor (GC) only builds cheaper if you build exactly as offered; if you want changes afterwards, the initial savings are mostly gone!
Good luck
K.Brodbeck
Similar topics