First of all, about the headline:
Avoid mistakes with the second house: housebuilding company or architect?
My spontaneous initial reaction was to say that the "or" is wrong; it should be an "and." In the course of the previous posts in this thread, it dawns on me how this question is meant. Namely in the sense of whether one should throw oneself at the first general contractor (GC) available or whether only architectural planning can prevent one from being pulled by a GC from the "house one wants to have built" to the "house within his (possibly miserable) abilities and his formulaic routine," like by a hostage-taker. It must be clearly said that the initial mistake here was going to a planner person whom the GC had brought along. On the "train to nowhere" there is
NO way to Paris.
You
always have to select the architect yourself. I explain this in detail around "A housebuilding roadmap, also for you: the HOAI phase model!" With this architect you first develop a preliminary design, and with this one makes a key decision during the resting phase. That was your second mistake: the design featuring the panorama dining room view could have been realized much more to your wishes with a different construction method. Instead, the inflexible GC pushed you fully into the shortcomings of his accustomed system. But that was avoidable; I pointed this out early in your old thread.
As part of the key decision, several masons and carpenters would have given you feedback on how expensive the desired features would be to implement with them. Then your "the first house is built for an enemy" GC would have been in a proper position to explain where his competitor derives his feasibility and where he does not. Afterwards, you would have further developed the preliminary design into a design in the feasible construction method, and then actively developed the building specification with a self-chosen construction consultant – for example, the designing architect – which would have been the basis for the tender.
Choosing a GC for execution is not a mistake in itself. The only problem is going directly to such a GC. The wise client calls
all trades out separately and professionally (through a suitable specialist). If
then one bidder offers for several or all lots and
only thereby and for this specific construction project becomes a general contractor, that is a good way. Approaching an all-in-one provider from the start and awarding them out of competition is as dumb as it is popular – one cannot say this any nicer (except not clearly enough).
I am currently struggling with replacing something new and functional, which is really nonsense emotionally. But at least cheaper than starting completely from scratch. Versus new construction, which would be associated with considerable additional costs compared to a new roof.
No !!!
The greatest nonsense now would be to destroy values, objectively considered market-appropriate components, by uneconomically removing and replacing them – this applies equally to the roof and the non-panorama windows. I would not continue the emotional damage of suffering your own home every day as a mark of Cain of your clumsy choice. I see no significant additional costs: the new house pays for itself significantly by shrinking by 30 or more square meters without the slightest loss of living quality. In two years you will be one "mortgage swap of the financed object" further and can laugh about the misstep with the first builder. And a more convenient basis for searching for a nearby plot than your current one does not exist. My former partner finds several plots every year while walking the dog and is just unfortunately not liquid enough to grab them all. Note: in a hiking panoramic view area with two highway interchanges each fifteen minutes away. "There is nothing" is a pessimist’s perception.