Everyone equal?

I have already seen a Town & Country house from someone who was satisfied, but I think that these contracts are mostly not questioned at all and the good experience was simply luck.

I'm not sure if you should just trust that you will also be lucky.

....So it can definitely be a viable approach, for example, to have service phases 1-4 done by the architect and then pass the rest on to a general contractor/contractor with appropriate contract design, if you need your own individual "design."

Oh yes, I even consider it highly sensible to contractually separate the service phases. This way, after the building permit, you can check whether the collaboration with the architect works or not. If it does work, however, it definitely makes sense to finish the project with the architect. Why should one suddenly continue with a general contractor? That makes no sense to me at all.

I simply don’t have the time to do everything myself with an architect.

And precisely because of that, you should work with the architect. That is exactly the advantage. You can have a say in everything from the selection of the craftsmen to the choice of materials and furnishings, but you don’t have to. You are completely free and can give the architect free rein without having to worry that cheap materials and, above all, wrong constructions will be built.

Of course, it is important that you trust him. You must also trust your general contractor, but usually (usually, not always) he tries to make as much profit as possible. Unfortunately, a sensible choice of materials and good constructions often fall by the wayside.....

Regards

Unfortunately, for me this is also a budget issue. Large providers can simply offer better prices just because of the volume.

The converse could of course be that one shouldn’t build at all if one cannot afford the model with [Architekt] and [Gewerkausschreibung] :-)

Unfortunately, for me this is also a budget issue. Large providers can simply offer better prices just because of the volume.

It is a widespread misconception that it is generally more expensive with the architect than with the general contractor (GC). In the end, you settle the bill, and you pay for the architect's services with the GC as well. The only sticking point is the fixed price, which the architect cannot give you. In the end, however, you do not pay less with the GC.

Hm, I got this information from an architect.

...that surprises me :confused:

The problem is also that you probably can’t really estimate this in advance, right?

Yes, with the necessary experience and the corresponding tools, you can.

The architect would have to get offers for most things to even get an idea of the total budget, and if that then exceeds my means, I would have already spent a lot of money on the architect. Right?

You have to tell the architect your limit before starting, of course. This is then taken into account during the design so that it doesn’t exceed your means.

I have another question regarding the sampling: In this case, no prices for reference objects are listed and the standard models are only visible after signing the contract.

A price list is said to be usual only for prefabricated houses.

That can't be right, can it? I don't see the problem with creating a sample price list, whether it's solid construction or prefabricated house.

What do you think?