Change of developer after construction has started?

The term "Bauträger" is used in various ways. As a company that, as the client, builds the house and then sells it. Or as, say, a large planning firm that designs houses, calculates costs, offers a fixed price, but completely constructs these buildings with subcontractors, where the customer is now the client. Team Massiv Büdelsdorf, for example, is such a company.

The problem with this type of construction is: the Bauträger doesn’t have any trades of its own, it has to find subcontractors. And at a price that makes its calculation work out. If the house has now been sold very cheaply, it can currently be difficult to find inexpensive subcontractors who are also willing to take it on and have the time. The customer suffers for it....When I see how painfully slowly Heinz von Heiden houses or Team Massiv houses are progressing in our settlement, I think: this is not intentional, it is because they have no companies. (Two streets down from us there is one that was started 9/16...in 14 days we will probably have overtaken it in progress.)
If I were not pressed for time, for example having terminated my apartment, I would be a bit more patient there and not burn money legally.

With the developer, the customer is not the builder but the buyer! You do not even have the right to enter the construction sites.

The term Bauträger is used in various ways. ...Team Massiv Büdelsdorf for example is such a company.

...

No, the term Bauträger has _one_ meaning, see above.

Everything else are general contractors.

Many home builders however offer contracts as Bauträger as well as GU. TM as well.

Ultimately, it is important what kind of contract one has, i.e. who the client is: where rights and obligations lie.

A purchase contract with a Bauträger cannot simply be dissolved by believing that you can then continue building with another company.

That’s why I am asking... how is one supposed to give good information here without contract content?

In short, greetings

.

The problem with this type of construction is: The developer doesn't have any trades of their own, they have to find subcontractors.

We built with a developer who did the earthworks, civil engineering, shell construction, plumbing, and roofing themselves. Furthermore, a foreman and the site manager from this company were always present on the construction site. So it is not necessarily as you describe. And precisely the absence of these subcontractor structures was one of the reasons we decided on this developer.

Many home builders, however, offer contracts both as developers and as general contractors. TM as well.

Whereby it should be added that this actually excludes each other: Either the customer is the owner of a plot of land. The "house building company" will then offer a contract for work and operate as a general contractor or general recipient. Or the "house building company" is the owner of the plot of land. Then it can only act as a developer. Anything else would be a sham (hidden client model) and does not occur in the reputable construction world :P.

And precisely the absence of these subcontractor structures was one reason we decided on this developer.

Then there are also developers who act only as planning offices and provide the construction manager but still deliver good quality. In our case, I would say that was achieved because not just any subcontractors are commissioned, but proven and well-known companies and craftsmen who repeatedly work for this developer. Ultimately, an architect also has to find "subcontractors," and the same accusation could be made here.

A property developer constructs buildings on the plots of land they have acquired, meaning the developer is simultaneously also the client. They sell the house with the land. The sale can take place before construction begins, during the construction phase, or after the completion of the building. In short: the client is the developer, you yourself are only the buyer.

The general contractor with overall responsibility ([GÜ]) differs from the general contractor ([GU]) in that they take on all construction services including planning. The architect, specialist planners, craft companies, etc. are commissioned by the general contractor with overall responsibility as subcontractors. This means you yourself are the client, and the general contractor with overall responsibility is the sole contractor.

With the general contractor ([GU]), you commission them and separately an architect/planner. The individual craft companies (subcontractors) are commissioned by the general contractor and have a contractual relationship with them. The planning and supervision of your construction project are the responsibility of the architect you have commissioned.

Then there is also individual contracting with an architect. Here you basically have all the contracts yourself (or with your architect). You are also the client.

Of course, the general contractor with overall responsibility ([GÜ]), general contractor ([GU]), or property developer ([BT]) can also do it themselves without subs. But they can also outsource almost everything. But the question of whether or not to use subs has no influence on whether you have a [GÜ]/[GU]/[BT] as your contact person.

It should be added that these basically exclude each other: Either the customer owns a plot of land. The "house building company" will then offer a contract for work and services and act as a general contractor or general contractor with overall responsibility. Or the "house building company" owns the land.

I think what ypg means is if you come with a plot of land, the ones who act as GÜ (and also then do the planning and build the house), but also buy up land themselves and market and develop it as a property developer, and finally hand it over to the buyer.