Isn't this partially what you pay your architect for? If you're willing to pay top dollar you should be able to find one that's very hands on and coordinates the whole building process as your representative.
> Isn't this partially what you pay your architect for?
There simply isn't a way to eliminate the principal-agent problem.
It might be possible to materially minimize the probability of error to have 2 agents, one that checks the others’ work. But that also will get costly.
Of course, paying more money could certainly help, but now you're paying 2,500 sq. ft. prices for a 1,000 sq. ft. house.
There's not really a replacement for doing daily or at least twice-weekly inspections yourself. The architect may catch some things but miss a completely botched plumbing job. And just for fun, every issue you catch will become a fight with the sub-contractor.
I can't understand how people can spend $$$ on building a new house but try to go cheap on the Architect... All you get is a McMansion.
The extension is, in my view, quite nice. We tried to get away with some crazy newfangled ideas like "eaves" and "bug screens" but Ireland shot us down there. People think we're insane not building it out of cinderblocks already.
Speaking of that tight-knit rural community, mostly I know that people can break the law with no consequences and won't talk to anyone their family hasn't known for at least 3 generations. And walking is bizarre and dangerous; the councillor thought I was joking when I asked about getting a footpath to the village 700 meters away.
Of course, if Ireland weren't kicking and screaming about building apartments in the middle of cities neat jobs, schools, transport, and amenities, it would be in a much better position.
Would be happy to compare notes! Email is in my bio.
In the toilets, the painter dutifully painted shut the plumbing and valves access panel ("you must open the panel before painting everything. And please don't paint the valves"). The electrician was about to pierce a hole between floors 1 foot away from the walls to pass cables through as I stopped him. Etc.
When having an house built, you (or the architect, or some other responsible person with a working brain) must be there looking at everything all the time. And even with that, they will fuck up. They'll lay alternating tiles in the wrong pattern. They'll build stairs of uneven height. They'll put a window in the kitchen that won't open because it hits the faucet. They'll set up doors that open on the wrong side (all of these happened to my in-laws when getting their home built, and they were there watching every day). They'll fuck up every time you don't watch, every single time.
Architects are about end results and "vision". General contractors, while imperfect, should be about getting it built.
So an architect you should roughly expect getting something built at any cost. A GC should be how to do it pragmatically or even if it's possible.
In between is the end result.
I think it’s wrong to think that all architects are like celebrity architects. If you’re designing a house there may be room for weird designs (if that’s what the client wants) but I think there’s also just a lot of technical or boring details that are handled by architects too.
Plenty of architects care about getting the details right. Check out Steve Baczek, who is online a lot, and is very interested in building science details.
But, if you've hired the architect to supervise construction, you've still got to supervise the architect. Maybe you only have to hound the architect to get issues fixed and let them figure out who fixes it, though; and they'll likely get a lot of things fixed without you, but you'll still get better results with regular supervision than hands off.
It is amazing how separate most architects are from the actual implementation. I sort of wish architects were required to apprentice as builders before doing design.
I recently built a custom house with a long time friend as the architect and have a family member I could talk to who is an architect. Additionally there was a structural engineer involved in the project for things like truss design and sheer calculations I could talk. That's a lot of talent and experience in residential and commercial design!
On the other hand my father is a general contractor and I have some construction experience and grew up around roofers, framers, etc.
All the architects I talked to frequently had very low visibility into the difficulty and cost factors of their design proposals.
For example: flush baseboards make the wall super clean and don't get dinged up. But no indie contractors in our area can install them.
Curves on drywall interior walls will match the curves in the plastered exterior walls - but while wetted 1/4 inch drywall will bend a pretty tight inside curve it can't be attached to an outside curve because it pulls through the fasteners - I ended up kerf cutting plywood to make the bend, priming it for adhesion and plastering the curves with help from a high end plaster specialist.
High windows downstairs go all the way to the ceiling inside which looks more balanced on the outside... but would require a small "vault" in the otherwise flat ceiling... Which would have affected the framing of the wall, required at least one custom floor truss instead of a standard TJI, made for super complicated trim in the affected rooms, required a very non-standard window size, and an expensive plaster detail at each such window. On my investigation it was going to be at least $25K to make 4 windows 8" taller!
In my experience custom home building architects generally were not very construction aware. Talking about installation practices or costs usually resulted in advice to "get a bid"! Despite being very pleased with my architectural collaboration I don't think hands-on supervision of actual building practice is likely a realistic expectation from a typical architect.