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

Hello forum,

For our construction project, we have settled on a regional timber frame builder. Compared to the large well-known prefab house companies, this is a rather small company, now taken over by the son, that has been building timber frame houses for several decades.

I am now planning to hire an architect because I don’t feel completely comfortable planning with a salesperson from the construction company.

The architect only wants to prepare 1-4 plans, so just up to the building permit / planning permission stage.

Is this an acceptable approach? I was generally thinking yes, since the builder has their own systems and would handle their own detailed execution planning, right?

Thanks in advance.

Maulwurfbau schrieb:

Is it possible to do it like this? I was generally thinking yes, since the construction company has its own "systems" in execution and would be better off managing their own/construction planning themselves?

Yes, you can do it that way. However, you should definitely hire an independent construction supervision.

Okay, thanks for the feedback.

The entire construction management is handled by the house builder. From what I have heard from many homeowners, they seem to do it very well. Everyone I have spoken to would build with them again.

External construction supervision? Could you please explain that in more detail?

External construction supervision is an expert who represents your interests and regularly attends inspection appointments. The construction manager, on the other hand, represents the interests of their employer (a handover-ready house at a low cost).

Maulwurfbau schrieb:

The architect only wants to do phases 1 to 4, meaning up to the building permit / planning permission.
Is that okay? I was generally thinking yes, since the construction company has its own "systems" and would handle the final execution planning themselves.

Yes, that can be done, yes, every system has its own specifics, but no, phases one to four is not correct.

The execution planning corresponds to phase five, and it’s best done by the same person who was the “creator” of phase three.

Architects offering phases one to four often have weaknesses in two areas crucial for cost accuracy: detailed planning and tender preparation. In timber construction, this is even more of an issue because, politely put, this is not a core competency for many architects. Therefore, the choice of architect is very important to avoid doing yourself a disservice and ending up with a consultant who is simply independent from the general contractor (GC) but not truly helpful.

Also, when working with a GC, the architect’s scope covering phases one to four often means phase four is done twice and paid for twice.

My advice in your case is: 1. commission the architect for phases one to three, with phase four then taken over by the timber construction company. 2. choose an architect experienced in timber construction. 3. also engage a timber construction-experienced independent expert to accompany the process. In my opinion, you can best find both by searching for "prefabricated house experts" and "A better Place." You may also have seen them in videos by "Flo."

For readers who are focused on a GC working with masonry / traditional building methods: my recommendation varies both regarding the choice of architect and the accompanying expert. Even better is to first commission the architect only for phases one and two, then during the pause phase use the preliminary design results to obtain neutral, construction-method-independent orientation offers before deciding on “timber or masonry.” Accordingly, the scope of the next architect contract would then be either “phases three to five” or “only phase three.”

---

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

Alright, I understand. Thanks for the detailed response. I will definitely request 1-3 inquiries then. It makes sense to me somehow.

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

My own constructed example: The architect plans up to the permit stage. The building authority grants the permit, but then the timber builder says, okay, I have to execute it differently, this should have been approved differently. Or, if I do it exactly as approved, it will be significantly more expensive; if we had planned it differently from the start for the permit, these costs would not have occurred, etc.

Is it roughly about that? Just so I understand everything correctly.