Comparability of costs Architect vs. General Contractor

The budget can be reduced the most through a clever floor plan and thus by foregoing unnecessary space.

That is an important point - we hope that the architect will come up with a few clever designs for us. The general contractor said that we can make the model house shorter / longer / wider etc., no problem at all - but when asked how to cleverly accommodate our room ideas in the house, that is not really a satisfactory answer :)

If the standard house is upgraded with €100k, you are not doing it right, then a general contractor without a standard house should offer the house directly according to the wishes. With the €100k upgrade, a large part directly stays with the standard house general contractor, simply because the minus key on the calculator is sticking.

The budget can be reduced most by a clever floor plan and thus by giving up unnecessary space.

Most of all (Rhenish comparative, SCNR) when you also understand this to mean avoiding roof complications like angles, bay windows, captain’s gables, etc.

With the general contractor, it was said we can make the model house shorter / longer / wider etc., no problem at all

That is nonsense. Only longer (in the ridge direction) and preferably affecting only one or two ceiling spans is correct.

in response to how we can cleverly accommodate our room concepts in the house, that is not really a satisfactory answer

But if you understand them when reading, it is a very clear answer, it is: "if a little more size with the same layout is not enough for you, then at least this model house is the wrong basis" (which incidentally also applies to other roof shapes).

For something like that, you also plan a buffer. You can't see everything at the beginning, and that's a good thing when you can and may make decisions little by little :)

That's how we see it too, and as a long-time reader and after some: we build, no we don't, oh yes - now a multi-family house -, oh no rather not, oh we build after all.. I have still gained a lot of input here. Among other things, the so-called buffer, which allows you to make some spontaneous decisions without it tearing a huge hole in the budget.

As a common saying, the "conviction" that you only build once is still very much alive,

Yes absolutely! Everyone who talks to us about it and for example asks if we have planned this or that, adds "you only build once anyway". Personally, I only actually know people who either have never built before or are doing it for the first time :)

Of course, you don't know everything beforehand. We will certainly still decide on some things spontaneously, but I have really tried so that it then

I am very happy for you that it works out for you that way or that you were able to determine/research many costs for yourselves in advance.

The large numbers worried us at first, etc., then we jumped on the train that the standard of the general contractor would be sufficient for us (just as we had seen with friends who also built with the general contractor). But on closer inspection, we realized that we would like it differently after all.

I can only repeat myself, we practically planned the buffers and therefore remain financially unchanged.

I personally actually only know people so far who either have never built before or are building for the first time

I am in my early fifties and of course I could be dead tomorrow – but if not, then "hereditary predisposition" makes me expect to have to "live" for another four decades. Building fun is all well and good, but from a business perspective, renting currently suits me. That means even if I am not currently in a hurry to build, it will probably happen "still" twice more that I build – since no one would wish four decades of stagnation in their development even on their worst enemy. If you look with open eyes at trends in senior living, you find that clinging to homeownership from the best years and wanting to continue living there at all costs until the grave is a peculiarity of the generations born between the two world wars, and those born under Adenauer already develop a different tendency. In this respect, it is simply closing one’s eyes to the realization of "panta rei" when builders from the Kohl generation seriously repeat like an enduring truth that one only builds once. If they all would bet with me, my pension would already be secure – and in style :) Anyone under 40 today, employed on a dependent basis, will statistically – so for all those who it does not affect, it affects others all the more – at least once face the decision: become unemployed or supplementary welfare recipient in the middle of nowhere where their current little house is, or endure an hour and a half commute to the new job that matches their qualifications, or move closer to that new workplace. Real estate is immobile, as the name says. People who can afford to be just as immobile do location-independent work or are retirees or private income recipients. It’s time to gladly bury the outdated attitude "you only build once" and not mourn it as a comfort-giving belief, but to recognize that it is also a demon: because the builder then sits like a rabbit in front of a snake, afraid that interpreting "only once" as "a botched one-time chance = a sentence of doom" will seal their purgatory by choosing the "wrong" clinker brick color shade. People, relax! – it’s ONLY a house, and you can also change it.

Short update: We had a constructive conversation with the preferred architect and will receive a cost estimate along with an offer by the end of the week. Feeling-wise and in terms of consulting, on a completely different level than the advisor of the [GU].