Let's put it this way, building with architects is basically the bespoke suit among dwellings. Very few people have the income and need for bespoke suits. Good ready-to-wear is often sufficient. And those are precisely the prefab houses.
I didn’t comment on your post earlier "in one go" because it has its own focus.
For the confidence with which those with statutory health insurance even expect individual plans (also from the GU’s lackey!) one probably has to thank the French Revolution. The type house (or as ’s favorite Heinz calls it, "serial architecture") definitely has its justification, and here the FRG missed learning from the GDR (however, I see the Flair 110/113 as a legitimate successor to the EW65, only that it is a provider’s design). And kit houses are also good sources for functional designs. Because it is indeed more inefficient than "individual" when Müllers, Meiers, and Schulzes each go to three architects who (due to similar framework conditions not by chance) basically design the same house, differing only by fractions. One could have taken ONE model "Müllermeierschulze" without any participant being at a disadvantage. Such a waste of architects’ time is – as long as it’s about ordinary citizen owner-occupied homes – ultimately "waste
without luxury". It is understandable that architects have little desire for this (and it should initiate a rethink). The interested readers might amuse themselves by comparing the offers of the intermediate house developers side by side, for example in a synopsis of Wengerter, Werner, and Weisenburger: the differences resemble hidden object puzzles.
I can’t discern any trend that it gets more expensive with an architect. I often hear that if planned smartly and if the builder knows what he wants and the building does not exude extravagance and decadence, building is not more expensive or even cheaper than without an architect.
Yes and no, with one’s own architect it is
usually minimally cheaper or the same price, so that he can effectively be seen as
cost-neutral. But indeed there is a "trend" to the safer path of building more expensively with one’s own architect – and it is so simple that one unfortunately has to say, "Debededehakape is a bestseller": namely, by only affording your own architect up to the approval stamp (thus omitting even the important service phase 5 to prevent drywall wart issues) and then of course (because without service phase 5 there is no service phase 6, etc.) fumbling around with homemade request-for-offers instead of professional tendering. Of course, you then pay more just for this alone because you accumulate a shipload of hourly charges. But that’s what makes the sorcerer’s apprentice.
Maybe that’s because many people commission architects when they want the expensive extras and high individuality and expensive materials.
That’s of course the highlight and puts a thick cherry on top: when you refine the said method by, first, planning in extra sausages and second, still changing selections during construction. The architects can’t do anything about that. However, there is also a builder-side "innocent" method to build an expensive architect house: namely by, out of desperation, hiring an architect who is actually not really active on the market (retired, escaped construction practice by working in authorities or academia, or the like). These candidates are notorious for their unrealistic cost estimates.
@11ant offered himself as a relay station. [...] If you search by his username, you will definitely find a direct way.
That is not necessary in this case – I wanted to signal with the offer that both legs are already connected to the hypotenuse ;-)
If you enter both usernames in Google, there is a hint how you can reach me too.
That trick is quite cunning: with it you even find the hibernation hideout of several forum alumni, from to – each under different names :)