Everyone equal?

Hello,

I have one more question about the sampling: In the present case, no prices are indicated for reference objects and you only see the standard models after signing the contract. A price list is only common for prefabricated houses.

Of course you don't get prices for fully completed reference objects. Why? Because then you would realize that the houses aren't actually that cheap ;)

Regards

and you only see the standard models after signing the contract.

Did you at least get the names?

In my general contractor's contract, there are usually 3 different models I can choose from (without the addition "or equivalent"); if I want a different model, I pay the extra cost directly to the trade. I find that a very fair arrangement.

Why should one suddenly continue with a general contractor (GU)? That makes no sense to me at all.

That has nothing to do with "suddenly." You can plan it exactly like that.

A creatively good architect whose design matches your expectations doesn’t necessarily have to have strengths in awarding contracts or controlling, right? The best example of this can be found in my first post.

...You are completely free and can give the architect free rein without having to fear that cheap materials will be used and, above all, incorrect constructions will be built...

Well, quite often there is a certain divergence between an architect’s ideas and the client’s willingness to experiment or budget. But of course, that is just as relative as the claim that general contractors are only interested in maximizing their profits.

Regards Peter

Hiring an architect for the design who has no idea about construction, building processes, and above all costs is dangerous. I'd say, the mix makes the difference ;)

No. I actually think there shouldn’t be architects who have no clue about construction or the building process... Because that is simply a matter of safety.

The architect’s idea is to satisfy the client. It has nothing to do with experimenting, but with planning a house solidly and cost-effectively

Naively viewed, certainly. But somehow the architect has to gain experience - and sometimes that happens at the expense and risk of the client, I can name you countless examples ;)

However, there are definitely architects - and on that I agree with you completely - who have expertise in cost-effective building. With them, a house often becomes more individual, better, but not more expensive than that of a run-of-the-mill prefab house supplier. The question is, how high is their proportion?

There are all sorts - on the general contractor side as well as on the architect side ;)

Nothing more to add to that ;)

Regards
Peter

Hello,

I think there shouldn't really be an architect who has no idea about constructions or the building process... Because that is simply a matter of safety.

You yourself have given an example.

But the architect has to gain his experience from somewhere - and sometimes he does that at the expense and risk of the client, I can give you countless examples ;)

As I said, experimenting around is not allowed.
There are plenty of constructions, building methods and materials that have proven themselves and work. And individuality does not have to suffer because of that.

.... The question is, how high is their proportion?

It is not as small as one might think.

Regards

Hello,

Oh yes, I even consider it extremely sensible to separate the performance phases contractually. This way you can check after the building permit whether the collaboration with the architect works or not.

I see it similarly …

If it works, however, it makes sense to complete the project with the architect. Why should you suddenly continue with a general contractor? That makes no sense to me at all.

But this corresponds more often to practice – I can only assume that this is because the potential client trusts a freelance architect to deliver a “more interesting room layout” than a contract-bound architect. However, it may also be related to the fact that many general contractors only offer “their program”; maybe shift a few walls here and there, and that’s it. What remains consistent in both explanations is that architectural costs are paid twice; therefore, it is not comprehensible – after the initial decision in favor of an architect and assuming the collaboration works well – to commission a general contractor.

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

And precisely because of that, you should collaborate with the architect. That’s exactly the advantage. You can participate in everything from the selection of 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 fear that cheap materials will be used and, above all, wrong constructions will be built. Of course, it is important that you trust him.

I only reluctantly disagree with you, because I appreciate your factual contributions very much, but reality looks a little different; perhaps you are just mistaken, which I also occasionally fall victim to – you and I probably work differently :D In my many years on the job, I have repeatedly worked with changing architects, both in-house and externally; the range of characters is comparable to the ocean of characteristics of clients. However, one thing they mostly have in common: they require a lot of patience and time from clients/sellers. Therefore, I have made it a rule to assign potential clients who show a clear will for obsessive intervention in the construction process and corresponding time to project supervision by an architect.

You have to trust your general contractor too, but he usually tries (usually, not always) to make the biggest possible profit. Unfortunately, a sensible material selection and good constructions often fall by the wayside……

Not with every general contractor – the problem arises when serious sellers name the exact costs of a construction project; the stereotypical answer from simpler minds is usually: “But company xyz is much _cheaper_.” This type of client then consistently switches to the lowest bidder and subsequently – when it becomes clear – that the previously shunned, reputable seller actually revealed the true numbers – the outcry is huge and radio/TV and internet are used with full force. Sometimes I quietly suspect that this kind of billing only serves one purpose: not to have to deal with the earlier wrong decision …

One more word about the “biggest possible profit”: usually fixed percentages for the company profit are added after calculating the construction project; and this is good because the company has the duty to make profits. The percentage varies depending on whether the company operates model houses, carries out elaborate advertising measures, or not. Here, the providers of prefabricated/wood or solid houses only differ from the architect in that the latter is forced to invoice his fee according to the HOAI; a massive deviation of the fee downward or upward is thus not possible. However, if I compare the sums for both variants – general contractor surcharge or architect’s fee – I can see that they do not differ that extremely.

It is my firm conviction that it is not constructive if architects and general contractors engage in verbal battles over who is the better choice for the planned construction project; sometimes it is the general contractor, sometimes the architect. Both should instead pull together when it comes to presenting our industry in the right light – accepted by society – in the eyes of the public. For this, it is necessary, among other things, to make potential clients realize that they would be better off postponing their construction project a little into the future. If this were implied, there would already be far fewer bad apples in our industry than there unfortunately still are today. Because especially the above-mentioned clients fill the books of those who bring an entire industry into disrepute.

Just my 2 coins