Service Phase 2 Fee: Meaning and Application Explained Simply

Building design
A professional planning scene in an open space on the topic of Service Phase 2 (Hoai)
Detailed work at the drawing board: Planning a landscaping project on paper. Photo: d_mccullough / Unsplash

Anyone who plans, renovates, or manages a building cannot avoid Service Phase 2 of the HOAI. This is the phase in which a construction project is transformed into an initial concrete concept: Here, landscape architects, architects, and engineers develop the fundamental approaches, weigh different options, and set the direction for the entire project. The decisions made during preliminary planning shape all subsequent phases through to construction.

  • What Service Phase 2 of the HOAI entails and how it differs from adjacent phases
  • Which services are part of preliminary planning and what is considered a special service
  • What role Service Phase 2 plays in landscape architecture and open space planning
  • How the fee for preliminary planning is calculated and what valuation criteria apply
  • What typical errors and misunderstandings occur in practice
  • How preliminary planning is coordinated with other specialist planners and authorities
  • What documents and deliverables must be available at the end of Service Phase 2
  • How Service Phase 2 fits into the broader context of planning law and project management

What Is Service Phase 2 of the HOAI? Definition and Classification

The Fee Schedule for Architects and Engineers (HOAI) divides planning services for buildings, outdoor facilities, civil engineering structures, and other types of projects into nine service phases. Service Phase 2 is designated “Preliminary Planning” and marks the transition from the conceptual preliminary study to the first detailed planning proposal. While Service Phase 1—the preliminary study—is still focused on clarifying the project scope and compiling all relevant information, Service Phase 2 of the HOAI involves developing concrete solution approaches based on this foundation, comparing them, and consolidating them into a preliminary planning concept.

The HOAI is a German government regulation on pricing that sets binding fee frameworks for the services it governs. It applies to architects, landscape architects, interior designers, and various engineering disciplines. The current version of the HOAI dates from 2021 and implements a ruling by the European Court of Justice, which had deemed the previously applicable mandatory minimum and maximum rates to be contrary to European law. Since then, the HOAI fee schedules have served as guidelines that form the basis for fee agreements without being legally binding. Nevertheless, the structure of the service phases and the descriptions of the basic services in the HOAI remain decisive for professional practice.

Service Phase 2 of the HOAI is of particular strategic importance for all parties involved in the planning process, as this is where the essential course is set. Decisions regarding site development, materials, program allocation, open space layout, or technical systems—made during the preliminary planning phase—can only be revised in later phases at considerable expense. In this context, experts refer to the “freezing” of planning decisions: the further a project progresses, the more expensive and time-consuming any fundamental change becomes.

Basic Services in Preliminary Planning: What the HOAI Specifically Requires

The HOAI describes so-called basic services for each service phase—that is, the scope of services typically required to achieve the planning objective, the fees for which are outlined in the fee schedules. For Service Phase 2, these basic services for outdoor facilities—which constitute the core scope of work for landscape architects—include, among other things, the analysis of the basic conditions, the development of a planning concept with a schematic representation, the clarification of key interrelationships, surveys and measurements of the planning site, and a cost estimate in accordance with DIN 276.

The cost estimate in accordance with DIN 276 is a key deliverable of Service Phase 2. It provides an initial reliable estimate of the project’s anticipated total costs based on the preliminary planning documents. DIN 276 categorizes construction costs into cost groups; for outdoor facilities, cost groups 500 (outdoor facilities) and 700 (incidental construction costs) are particularly relevant. The cost estimate in the preliminary planning phase still has a relatively wide range because many details have not yet been finalized. Nevertheless, it is sufficiently binding to provide the client with a basis for deciding whether the project is economically feasible in its planned form.

Preliminary planning also involves exploring alternative solutions. This is not a mere formality but a core task: The planner should demonstrate to the client that they have considered the task from multiple angles and that the chosen solution is not merely the only conceivable one, but the best one based on professional judgment. In landscape architecture, this can involve comparing different types of open spaces—such as a natural meadow-like setting versus a more formally designed landscape—or different access concepts for a city square. This analysis of alternatives demonstrates the planner’s diligence and protects both parties in the event of future disputes regarding the quality of the design.

In addition, during the preliminary planning phase, the results must be coordinated with the client and their approval obtained. This coordination step is more than a mere formality: It marks the transition from concept development to detailed planning and lays the foundation for commissioning Service Phase 3, the design planning phase. Without documented approval of the preliminary planning by the client, the contractual basis for further work is lacking.

Service Phase 2 in Landscape Architecture and Open Space Planning

For landscape architects, Service Phase 2 of the HOAI holds particular significance in terms of content, because outdoor spaces are most strongly shaped by fundamental conceptual decisions during this phase. Whether a city square is developed as a green public space or as a hard, multifunctional urban plaza; whether a schoolyard distributes recreational activities across the entire area or divides them into zones; whether a residential neighborhood is accessed via linear pathways or an organic network of paths: All these decisions are made during the preliminary planning phase and determine the character, usability, and maintenance requirements of a space for decades to come.

In open-space planning, it is also important to note that Service Phase 2 is often closely linked to planning-law procedures. Zoning plan procedures, urban development framework plans, or competition results often provide the starting point for the preliminary planning of open spaces. During Service Phase 2, the landscape architect must determine which requirements from these overarching plans are binding and what leeway they allow for the design of the open space. This requires a solid understanding of building planning law, particularly the Building Code and the Land Use Ordinance, as well as the relevant regulations governing open space planning.

Fundamental decisions regarding vegetation and ecology are also prepared during the preliminary planning phase. Whether a row of trees is planned with large-crowned urban trees or small-crowned ornamental shrubs, whether perennial plantings are designed as low-maintenance community plantings or as more elaborate display plantings, and whether rainwater is allowed to infiltrate, stored, or diverted: These questions affect not only the design but also the functionality, climate impact, and long-term costs of an outdoor facility. A thorough Service Phase 2 sets the course here without yet delving into the detailed aspects of the design planning.

Fees and Valuation: How Service Phase 2 Is Compensated

The fee for Service Phase 2 under the HOAI is calculated as the proportion of the total fee attributable to preliminary planning, multiplied by the fee derived from the billable costs and the fee zone. For the scope of services related to outdoor facilities, the HOAI assigns a percentage of the total fee to Service Phase 2. This percentage varies depending on the scope of services; for outdoor facilities, it generally amounts to seven percent of the total fee for basic services according to the current HOAI 2021.

The billable costs form the basis for the fee calculation and essentially correspond to the construction costs of the planning project—that is, the construction costs of the outdoor facilities in accordance with DIN 276. The fee zone indicates how demanding a planning task is: It ranges from Zone I (low requirements) to Zone V (very high requirements) and significantly influences the fee. For outdoor facilities in urban contexts with high design, ecological, and usage-related requirements, classification into fee zones III or IV is often appropriate. Classification into the correct fee zone is a professional decision that must be well-founded and agreed upon with the client.

Special services—that is, services that go beyond the basic services defined by the HOAI—are agreed upon and compensated separately. For Service Phase 2, these may include, for example, extensive variant analyses beyond the usual scope, the preparation of feasibility studies, participatory processes involving users or residents, or the development of maintenance concepts as standalone services. Experts recommend clearly identifying and agreeing upon special services at the time the contract is concluded to avoid subsequent fee disputes.

Coordination, Alignment, and Common Mistakes in Practice

Service Phase 2 of the HOAI is not an isolated planning service, but rather a coordinated process that brings together the contributions of various specialist planners. In complex projects, landscape architects collaborate during the preliminary planning phase with architects, structural engineers, building services engineers, traffic planners, soil consultants, and other specialists. Coordinating these contributions is a distinct service that, under the HOAI, is assigned to the project planner. For outdoor spaces, this means that the landscape architect must clarify the interfaces with civil engineering, drainage, lighting, and outdoor furniture at an early stage.

A common mistake in practice is to move on from Service Phase 2 too early—that is, to proceed to the design planning phase before the preliminary planning has actually been completed and approved. This often happens due to time pressure or because clients want to see quick results. The result is that fundamental conceptual issues that should have been clarified during the preliminary planning phase are carried over into the design planning phase, where they lead to considerable additional work. Design changes in Service Phases 3 or 4 that stem from unresolved preliminary planning issues must, according to the HOAI, generally be compensated as change orders, which can lead to additional fee claims and conflicts.

Another common misunderstanding concerns the level of detail required in the preliminary planning phase. Service Phase 2 of the HOAI does not require construction details, planting plans, or bills of quantities. It requires a conceptually sound, to-scale planning concept that documents the key decisions and enables a reliable cost estimate. Anyone who delves into the level of detail required for construction planning as early as the preliminary planning phase is wasting resources and risks having this detailed work rendered obsolete by later planning changes.

Coordination with government agencies also plays an important role in Service Phase 2. For many open-space projects, early discussions with the local nature conservation authority, the city planning office, the historic preservation authority, or the civil engineering office are necessary to clarify which requirements and restrictions apply to the project. Although these consultations are not explicitly listed as a basic service of Service Phase 2, they are part of professional practice and can be agreed upon as a special service if they involve a significant amount of work.

Results and Documentation at the End of Preliminary Planning

At the end of Service Phase 2 of the HOAI, a clearly structured preliminary planning package should be available, providing the client with a sound basis for decision-making. Typical deliverables include a detailed preliminary design plan drawn to an appropriate scale—often 1:500 or 1:200 in open-space planning—an explanatory design description, which outlines the concept, proposed solutions, and justifications for key decisions, as well as a cost estimate in accordance with DIN 276, broken down by cost categories.

The planning description is more than just an accompanying text: it serves as the argumentative backbone of the preliminary planning and documents why certain solutions were chosen and others rejected. A well-written planning description protects the planner in the event of future disputes because it demonstrates that decisions are based on a well-considered professional foundation. For landscape architects, it also offers the opportunity to convey the ecological, climatic, and social qualities of a design—qualities that cannot be fully conveyed through drawings alone.

The client’s approval of the preliminary planning should be documented in writing. This can take the form of meeting minutes, an email confirmation, or a formal approval statement. This documentation is a prerequisite for commissioning the next phase of services and protects both parties from misunderstandings regarding what was agreed upon. In practice, this step is often neglected, which can later lead to disputes over whether certain planning changes should be considered a redesign or a further development of the approved concept.

Service Phase 2 in the Context of the Entire Planning Process

Service Phase 2 of the HOAI is not an isolated planning stage, but rather an integral part of a continuous process that extends from the initial idea to the completed facility. Its significance becomes fully apparent only in the context of the other service phases: It builds on the preliminary study conducted in Service Phase 1 and lays the foundation for the design planning in Service Phase 3. Issues not clarified during the preliminary planning stage resurface as problems in later phases, often in a form that is more expensive and time-consuming to resolve.

For clients—especially public building owners and project developers—Service Phase 2 is the moment when they first gain a reliable idea of what their project will cost and what it will look like. The cost estimate from the preliminary planning phase is often the first figure presented to governing bodies, committees, or investor groups. It therefore has a political and economic dimension that goes beyond purely technical planning work. Planners who are aware of this dimension prepare their preliminary planning documents with this communicative aspect in mind.

The growing importance of climate adaptation, biodiversity, and blue-green infrastructure in urban development has significantly expanded the substantive requirements for Service Phase 2 in open space planning in recent years. Concepts for “sponge city” principles—that is, decentralized stormwater management in open spaces, heat mitigation measures through greening and shading, and habitat connectivity for urban biodiversity: All of this must be conceptually anchored as early as the preliminary planning phase if it is to be effective during implementation. Service Phase 2 of the HOAI is thus not only an instrument of planning law but also a central tool for quality assurance in the open spaces of growing and changing cities.

Those who take preliminary planning seriously save time, money, and stress in all subsequent phases. Those who treat it as a mere formality will pay the price later. This is no exaggeration, but rather the sober experience of every seasoned planner who knows how much work goes into a poorly prepared design phase and how rarely this work is adequately compensated.

YOU MAY ALSO LIKE

Permaculture as a Principle for Urban Open Space Planning

Building design
concrete-house-on-calm-water-on-the-day-HsNLzllzW58
Modern, sustainable concrete house on a still body of water in Switzerland, photographed by Aswathy N

Permaculture in urban planning? To many, that sounds like a self-sufficient idyll or a romanticized vision of the wilderness. But behind the term lies a highly relevant, systemic principle that has long since found its way into urban open-space planning—and has the potential to make cities more sustainable, climate-resilient, and socially inclusive. It’s high time to take permaculture seriously as a toolkit and conceptual framework for the city of tomorrow.

  • Definition and Origins of Permaculture—More Than Just Gardening for Advanced Practitioners
  • Permaculture Principles and Their Applicability to Urban Open-Space Planning
  • Practical examples from Germany, Austria, and Switzerland: From community gardens to urban sponge areas
  • Systemic Thinking: How Permaculture Creates Synergies Between Ecology, Society, and Urban Development
  • Planning tools, participation, and governance—what professionals need to know
  • Challenges and Limitations in Integrating Permaculture into Municipal Planning Practice
  • How Permaculture Can Help Make Cities Climate-Resilient and Livable
  • Innovative Approaches to Land Management, Biodiversity, and Social Participation
  • Conclusion: Permaculture as a Source of Inspiration for a New Generation of Urban Planners and Landscape Architects

What Is Permaculture? From Agriculture to Urban System Innovation

The term “permaculture” is a portmanteau derived from the English phrases “permanent agriculture” and “permanent culture.” Originally developed in the 1970s by Bill Mollison and David Holmgren in Australia, the focus was on creating permanently functional and sustainable agricultural systems. But it soon became clear that the principles of permaculture could be applied far beyond the farm—to gardens, neighborhoods, cities, and even entire societies.

Permaculture is based on the recognition that natural ecosystems are highly complex, resilient, and efficient because they rely on diversity, circular thinking, and cooperation. Instead of working against nature, human settlements and open spaces should be designed to work in harmony with natural processes. The goal: to create living spaces that conserve resources, prevent waste, save energy, and promote social cohesion.

In practice, this means much more than just a few raised beds or wildflower meadows. Permaculture is a methodological toolkit that encompasses design principles such as “Observe and interact,” “Use edges,” and “Design from patterns to details.” These principles are remarkably universal—and can be applied to open-space planning, urban development, and landscape architecture.

More and more cities around the world are discovering permaculture as a source of innovation. In New York and San Francisco, public parks are being created based on permaculture concepts; in Copenhagen and Zurich, entire neighborhoods are being developed using permaculture designs. But interest is also growing rapidly in German-speaking countries, and the first pilot projects show that permaculture and the city are not a contradiction, but rather a productive alliance.

Perhaps the most important difference from traditional planning is that permaculture does not think in terms of individual measures, but rather in terms of relationships, interactions, and processes. It asks: How can a space store water, promote biodiversity, facilitate social interaction, and at the same time be climate-resilient? This makes permaculture a systemic innovation strategy that playfully transcends traditional disciplinary boundaries.

For professionals in urban and open-space planning, this means that those who understand the principles of permaculture expand their methodological repertoire and can design urban spaces that are resilient, multifunctional, and sustainable. It is therefore worth taking a closer look at how permaculture works in practice in the city—and what opportunities and challenges this presents.

Permaculture Principles for Urban Open Space Planning—Systems Thinking Meets Urban Space

Applying permaculture principles to the city is anything but trivial—but it’s also anything but impossible. The first step is to understand the essential design principles and adapt them to the urban context. Permaculture traditionally operates on a set of fundamental principles, such as observation, circular economy, multifunctionality, the use of synergies, and the principle that “every part serves multiple functions.”

In the context of urban open spaces, this means, for example, that a rainwater garden can not only retain water and promote evaporation but also serve as a place to gather, a learning space, and a habitat for insects. A green strip is not merely seen as a divider between traffic areas, but as a productive edge zone that promotes biodiversity, produces food, and facilitates social interaction. Multifunctionality is the magic word here—and a clear counterpoint to traditional, monofunctional land-use zoning.

Another key principle is thinking in terms of cycles. Instead of consuming resources linearly and producing waste, permaculture focuses on closing material cycles. In urban practice, this means: on-site composting of organic waste, rainwater harvesting in parks, the integration of urban vegetable gardening, and the use of “waste” such as leaves, pruning clippings, or graywater as a resource. Urban open-space planning can thus become not only more sustainable but also significantly more efficient.

Creating synergies between different systems is another central concern. For example, an urban community garden can be designed not only to produce vegetables but also to serve as a learning space for schools, promote social integration, and increase biodiversity in the neighborhood. This is where the strength of permaculture thinking lies: space is designed not as the sum of individual functions, but as a network of complementary relationships.

Finally, permaculture relies on participatory processes. The involvement of the urban community is not a decorative afterthought but an integral part of the planning process. Users become co-creators, local knowledge is incorporated into the design, and responsibility is shared. For planners, this means that participation is not merely relegated to the “participation table,” but is part of the entire planning process—from analysis and design through to maintenance and further development.

The challenge lies in applying these principles within the context of existing planning routines, regulations, and administrative structures. This requires a pioneering spirit, creativity, and sometimes even a dash of civil disobedience. Yet the experiences of recent years show that where permaculture succeeds in the city, it creates not only a new quality in public spaces but also in social interaction.

Practical Examples: Permaculture in German, Austrian, and Swiss Cities

The theory sounds convincing—but what does permaculture in the city actually look like? A look at selected projects in German-speaking countries shows just how diverse the approaches are and what innovations become possible when permaculture principles are specifically integrated into open-space planning.

One flagship project is the “Prinzessinnengarten” in Berlin. On a former brownfield site, an urban garden was developed here in cooperation with residents, initiatives, and planners—a space that not only produces vegetables but also serves as an educational, social, and cultural hub. Composting, rainwater harvesting, biodiversity, and social integration are its cornerstones—and make the site an exemplary testing ground for permaculture in the big city.

In Vienna, too, permaculture-inspired open spaces are increasingly emerging. For example, a public park was developed in the Sonnwendviertel neighborhood based on the principles of the circular economy and biodiversity. Rainwater is collected and used for irrigation; there are community garden beds, insect-friendly plantings, and thoughtfully designed border areas. Maintenance is partly carried out by cooperating neighborhood initiatives, thereby strengthening social participation and responsibility.

In Basel, Switzerland, the “Urban Agriculture Basel” project focuses on integrating permaculture principles into neighborhood management. Here, rooftops, courtyards, and open spaces are systematically designed as productive, multifunctional areas. The goal: to develop food sovereignty, climate adaptation, and social innovation hand in hand. Particularly exciting is the close collaboration with local stakeholders and the integration of urban development, education, and open-space design.

In medium-sized German cities such as Göttingen and Freiburg, more and more “edible cities” are emerging. Here, urban green spaces are systematically enriched with edible plants that citizens are allowed to harvest. The land-use management strategy is based on permaculture principles: utilizing peripheral areas, promoting diversity, and linking ecological, social, and cultural goals. Even traditional parks and recreation departments are increasingly discovering the potential of permaculture interventions, such as “sponge city” elements, species-rich wildflower meadows, or multifunctional rainwater gardens.

These examples show that permaculture is not a niche phenomenon for alternative gardening groups, but rather an innovation strategy that has taken center stage in urban development. It is crucial that these projects be integrated into overall planning not just as isolated initiatives, but as systemic building blocks. Where permaculture becomes a planning principle, resilient, vibrant, and socially just urban spaces emerge that go far beyond ecological benefits.

Strategies, Tools, and Governance: Permaculture in Planning Practice

Integrating permaculture into urban open-space planning requires new planning strategies, tools, and governance models. First and foremost, a fundamental understanding of systems thinking is needed. Traditional instruments such as land-use plans or zoning plans reach their limits when the goal is to create multifunctional, adaptive, and participatory spaces. This calls for flexible planning tools that are oriented toward dynamic processes—such as adaptive master plans, cooperative maintenance agreements, or temporary land-use models.

A key tool is participatory analysis and planning. Methods such as mapping, future workshops, or co-creative design processes help to identify local knowledge and needs. Permaculture design processes often rely on intensive observation and site analysis to identify and strategically harness a location’s potential. Digital tools such as GIS can help visualize spatial synergies and model interactions between land use, the water cycle, and biodiversity.

Governance plays a key role. Traditional top-down management quickly reaches its limits in permaculture projects. Instead, cooperative models are needed in which government, civil society, and local stakeholders share responsibility. Contracting models, public sponsorships, or cooperatives can help ensure the long-term maintenance and further development of permaculture spaces. Transparency is crucial here: Who makes the decisions, who benefits, and who bears responsibility?

Integrating permaculture approaches into existing planning and funding structures remains a challenge. Many funding programs are tailored to traditional green spaces or “investment measures”; securing funding for participatory processes, maintenance, or educational work is often difficult. This calls for a shift in political thinking and new funding instruments that recognize and support the long-term social and ecological benefits of permaculture projects.

Finally, permaculture also presents a communication challenge. Its principles are complex and often require explanation. Professional public relations, transparent communication, and educational programs are therefore essential for gaining acceptance among administrative bodies, policymakers, and the urban community. Anyone who wants to successfully establish permaculture in the city must be persuasive not only in technical terms but also in terms of communication and politics.

For planners, landscape architects, and urban developers, permaculture offers a rich treasure trove of methods—but also the challenge of questioning routines and daring to try something new. The reward: open spaces that set new standards not only ecologically but also socially and culturally.

Perspectives: Opportunities and Limits of Permaculture in the City of Tomorrow

Permaculture is not a panacea, but it is a powerful tool for 21st-century urban development. Its greatest strength lies in its systemic approach: rather than promoting isolated projects, it integrates ecology, economy, and social aspects into a holistic development model. In this way, cities can become not only more climate-resilient, but also more livable, equitable, and innovative.

The opportunities are enormous: Permaculture can help reduce urban heat islands, increase biodiversity, strengthen local food sovereignty, and promote social participation. Cities become more resilient to extreme weather, resources are used more efficiently, and new spaces for education, social interaction, and innovation emerge. Last but not least, permaculture can help optimize land management and design open spaces to be multifunctional.

But there are also limitations. Not every area is suitable for permaculture; conflicts with other land-use demands—such as transportation or housing development—are inevitable. Integrating permaculture into existing legal and planning structures requires patience, creativity, and often political support. Furthermore, there is a risk that permaculture will be misused as a “fig leaf” for greenwashing rather than actually driving systemic change.

The greatest challenge remains the cultural shift in planning and administration. Permaculture demands a new understanding of roles: planners become facilitators, administrative bodies become enablers, and citizens become co-creators. This is unfamiliar, but it also presents an enormous opportunity for innovation and social cohesion. Those who embrace this change will be rewarded with resilient, vibrant, and sustainable cities.

The future of permaculture in the city depends on whether we succeed in permanently integrating its principles into planning and decision-making structures. This requires courage, openness, and a willingness to experiment—but also clear political frameworks and innovative funding models. Permaculture is not an end in itself, but a tool for transforming the city in the Anthropocene. Those who start today can make a difference tomorrow.

The next generation of urban planners and landscape architects faces the challenge of viewing permaculture not as a niche but as an integral part of urban development. The tools and knowledge are there—it’s up to us to use them.

Summary:
Permaculture as a principle for urban open-space planning offers a fascinating, systemic response to many of today’s challenges: climate adaptation, biodiversity, social participation, and sustainable resource use. The principles of permaculture can be successfully applied to urban spaces, as numerous projects in German-speaking countries demonstrate. However, integration into planning processes, governance models, and urban society is crucial—this is where the true innovative power lies. Those who seriously engage with permaculture open up new paths toward a resilient, vibrant, and equitable city. The future of urban open spaces is multifunctional, participatory—and perhaps a little bit permacultural.

Uzin Utz presents its BIM construction database at Digitalbau

Building design

With the floor planning plug-in for ArchiCAD and Revit, planners can integrate the construction chemicals supplier’s systems into their digital processes. Uzin Utz provided information about its BIM application in floor planning at the newly created Digitalbau trade fair in Cologne from February 11 to 13, 2020. At the joint stand with Heinze, visitors were able to test the plug-in with ArchiCAD and Revit. BIM […]

With the floor planning plug-in for ArchiCAD and Revit, planners can integrate the construction chemicals supplier’s systems into their digital processes.

Uzin Utz provided information about its BIM application in floor planning at the newly created Digitalbau trade fair in Cologne from February 11 to 13, 2020. At the joint stand with Heinze, visitors were able to test the plug-in with ArchiCAD and Revit.

Users can use it to select the desired system components via a material query and upload them on a project-specific basis. Concrete ceilings, screed constructions for different loads, tile constructions etc. – around 3,000 parts in total – are output via structured online queries. With the help of the plug-in, all components can be updated automatically and collectively. “BIM will continue to gain in importance due to its benefits such as cost and execution security – for building owners, investors, architects and planners, the building materials industry, the building materials trade, construction companies and specialist tradespeople,” said Philipp Utz on the company’s digitalization strategy.