Construction costs of a single-family house

Hello everyone!

Today I have a question about the construction costs of a single-family house:

Here in the forum I have read that you have to expect costs of around 1,000-1,350 euros per m² depending on the equipment. That is understandable. But what does that mean now in terms of "the way of building"?
If I build with an architect (planning, awarding contracts, construction supervision), is his fee added to the price per m²?
Does that also mean that if I look for a general contractor [GU/GÜ], his profit is added to the price?
If an architect tells me that he plans with approximately 175,000 euros costs plus fee, would the same house cost at least 175,000 euros plus profit with a [GU/GÜ]?
In the end, is it practically the same price? Or where is my error in thinking?

Have a nice weekend everyone! :)
Goldbeere

Hello Goldbeere,

Here in the forum I read that one must expect costs of around 1,000-1,350 euros per m² depending on the equipment. That is understandable so far. But what does that mean now in relation to "the way of building"?

A simple, square house is cheaper than one with elaborate architecture, for example with dormers or many windows, or so on. The choice of wall structure also plays a role; a double-shell masonry wall is more expensive due to higher craftsmanship costs than, for example, using only one material with ETICS; facing bricks cause additional costs. Not to forget the heating technology used as well as the other equipment features.

If I build with an architect (planning, awarding, site management), does his fee come on top of the price per m²?

According to all experience, yes. The architect calculates the possible construction price based on the price lists of the crafts companies he prefers to commission. Added to that is his fee, based on the service levels agreed in the architect contract.

Does that then also mean that if I look for a general contractor (GU/GÜ), his profit is added to the price?

If he offers you a fixed price, the services regarding necessary architecture are usually included. It always depends on the building specifications.

In the end, is it practically equally expensive? Or where am I mistaken??

Even if some users in the forum see it differently, the architect is usually the - financially speaking - more expensive option. There are few architects who - for various reasons - are able to submit a fixed-price offer. However, the collaboration between client and architect is often closer than with nationwide general contractors.

The truth is - if an architect is commissioned, it rarely has exclusively to do with the available budget. The decision for an architect is made out of very personal preferences; the decision for a reputable general contractor because the client does not have to worry about anything.

Kind regards

Many thanks for your reply, Bauexperte. :)

Unfortunately, I still don't quite understand it...
If I assume that a general contractor (GU) also offers the architectural service and still wants to make a profit, then it should actually be more expensive than if I only hire an architect myself, right? It seems rather impossible that the GU says the house costs, for example, €1,200/m² including everything and then the architect's fee is added to that price? Somehow strange... but you always read different opinions about this (like about so many things in construction). ;)

Best regards,
Goldbeere

Hello Goldbeere,

Thank you very much for your response, Bauexperte.

You're welcome.

If I assume that a general contractor also offers the architectural services and still wants to make a profit, then it actually has to be more expensive than if I only commission an architect myself?

On the one hand, you can assume that reputable GCs either have their own construction crews and/or contract partners (trades for shell/interior finishing) with whom they maintain long-term business relationships. These business relationships are based on price negotiations, which are oriented to the volume of expected orders and renegotiated annually. On the other hand, there are reputable and nationally operating providers who see themselves as intermediaries between the client and the GC. This means these providers have developed a construction specification and already clarified all price limits with their GCs in advance – through nationwide cooperations, such as in the window trade – and are thus able to operate on the market with attractive conditions and mostly high safety standards. In this variant, the award price plays the essential role; all parties waive part of their margin if the books are full all year round. Incidentally, there are very few providers who actually realize the entire construction service with their own staff because the risk of insolvency is simply too high.

The risk arising from this model is that there are unscrupulous providers who have adapted to the group of those who still need to save equity for a while and therefore should postpone their building desire into the future. These providers have negotiated the award prices down to the last fraction, continuously change contract design and thus put the involved craftsmen in an extreme position when clients do not pay. This often leads – as you can unfortunately read a lot about here – to the craftsmen having to stop work out of self-protection must, because the owed remuneration is not paid for various reasons. You will find this group in the posts that my mod colleagues and I call cheap providers and who usually end up on the insolvency court list within a manageable time frame. This is also the reason why we mods alert every prospective client to obtain information about their preferred provider!

Is it not rather impossible that the GC says the house costs e.g. €1,200/m² including everything and the architect's fee is added on top of that?

The architect usually works with local craftsmen, who are normally listed with the nearest building material dealer; you can certainly imagine that this cooperation is limited to max. 5-10 houses per year. On the one hand, because the capacity on the craftsmen's side is limited, and on the other hand because the architect usually also acts as site manager and consequently his time is limited; this results in higher input prices, since each party involved takes responsibility for their employees and their livelihood. The architect’s fee (according to HOAI) is based on these input prices and the scope of services agreed with the architect. It is thus added as the last item to the calculated offer of the involved craftsmen. By the way, there have already been interesting rulings in which the architect was regarded as a GC because he coordinated the various trades => liable for damages. This is among other reasons why only a few architects give a fixed price offer.

Kind regards