Differences between General Contractor and Real Estate Project Developer

Oh dear, that scares me, that's EXACTLY what we wanted to avoid :( At least when it comes to the construction/performance description, it basically says the same thing for the general contractor and the construction developer...

If you take a standard house with a standard construction performance description, you won't have to do anything with a general contractor. A construction coordinator doesn't have anything like that. I can hardly imagine that you will only have to make minor decisions with the construction coordinator, because there has to be something to decide. After all, he doesn't even know what you want; such a construction performance description is far too vague to build individually based on it.

Oh dear, that scares me, that's EXACTLY what we wanted to avoid :( At least as far as the construction/performance description is concerned, it's practically the same for the general contractor and the building developer

The performance description is the end result.

Imagine building a house like buying a car. You can go to VW and buy a car. You have a contact person with whom you configure the car and eventually it is delivered. The car salesman is also your contact person if the transmission breaks down.

Your building developer is basically an engineer who connects you with Bosch, Conti, ZF, etc. There you order the individual components and have to coordinate the assembly.
If the transmission breaks here, however, you do not deal with the building developer, but directly with ZF.

In both cases you have a finished car product; the route is just different. In case of doubt, also the price.

But once again the question: Why don’t you build with an architect? You pay for that anyway and you are much more flexible that way.

We are currently building exactly with a construction coordinator.

It has definitely become cheaper and higher quality than the house with a general contractor. I give you my word on that.

I also thought it was great to discuss everything very precisely with each craftsman so that it turns out the way I want. For example: with the natural stone floor, we carefully selected exactly which slab we wanted where. Many things the general contractor would not have offered me at all. For example, I have a built-in shelf in the bathroom with LED lighting and solid wood boards; the general contractor does not do things like that. Or LED strips on the stair handrail. But we were really very persistent and always involved...

If someone is not interested in that and wants a completely normal house, I would recommend the general contractor.

And if you want an individual house and little hassle, I recommend support from A to Z with an architect... you save a lot of nerves and the architect takes the hassle that does come off you because he does not care if the craftsman is angry afterwards... unfortunately, the construction coordinator does because he wants to continue working with the same guys for the next few years...

He doesn't care if the craftsman is angry afterwards... but unfortunately the construction coordinator does, as he wants to work with the same guys for the next few years...

Apart from the quoted text, I fully agree with you. But the architect also has to maintain good relations with the trades, otherwise soon no one will make him offers. :-p

There isn't as much choice for an architect as there used to be. Nowadays, most architects only receive 1-2 offers and then it's already over.

In my eyes, the middle way is the worst. A construction supervisor has no responsibility and strong nepotism towards his companies.

I would clearly recommend the architect or GU to you.

I would decide independently of prices that are floating around whether I want to build with a general contractor or if I have the time and desire for individual awarding,

We have eliminated the by far cheapest provider first.