General contractor search vs planning with architect and tendering - general procedure?

In our circle of acquaintances, we repeatedly hear that they have looked for a general contractor who primarily advertises with catalog houses, with whom they were able to realize their own ideas (partly through minor modifications, partly through significant deviations from the catalog, or even "completely" new plans). General contractors were then compared, with price, likeability/trust, and also the description of construction services (as far as available and understandable to laypeople) playing a role—presumably in that order.

On the other hand, we also know a few people who have planned with independent architects, had tenders made, and had a lot of freedom but also a lot of work (especially decision-making, which is not necessarily a bad thing per se). However, they built in higher price ranges than we are aiming for (which probably is not directly related to this approach).

This is all more hearsay; we only have detailed insights in individual cases.

We have now wondered what role leafing through catalogs should play for us. Whether we should "make life easy for ourselves" and modify a few general contractor offers until they basically fit, and then compare them. Or whether we should have an architect plan. Details about our case gladly in another thread. Here the question is more general, since the discussion in our circle of acquaintances also has a more general character.

So: What is to be made of requesting and comparing general contractors with catalogs (e.g. Team Massivhaus, Viebrockhaus [not quite the same league, I know, just as examples], or prefabricated house companies)? What are the advantages and disadvantages compared to starting with an independent architect (and probably having him issue tenders afterward)?
And would "an architect who already has cooperating subcontractors" be an intermediate solution?
Or what other common approaches exist (roughly outlined) to combine as many advantages as possible? (And: I do not want to spark a discussion about Baudirekt, but how would that be classified here?)

__

What is on my mind:
- Quick offer preparation/rough estimate
- Price range
- Description of construction services
- Organizational effort
- Design freedom vs. "being pressed into a mold"
- Own contributions
- Trades are well coordinated with each other and possibly with the architect

__

and (and possibly , I am not checking now), , but starting from our situation. Here perhaps a bit more generally. I know the phases of , but I suspect there are many who approached construction quite differently (whether that is better or worse is debatable; it seems to me to be a given).

So: What do you think of requesting general contractors with catalogs (e.g. Team Massivhaus, Viebrockhaus [not quite the same league, I know, just for example purposes], or prefab house companies) and comparing them?

Since you can't compare the catalog prices – they're offering apples, pears, kiwis, and bananas – I think very little of it. Especially when the final price is only determined once you've accommodated all your requests (upgrades). The standard equipment of all providers is different.

What are the advantages and disadvantages compared to the option of starting with a freelance architect (and probably having them put it out to tender)?

You can also work with an architect and general contractor (regardless of whether it's solid construction or prefab/wood frame). Feel free to read 's posts on the subject.

Short:

If you choose a house from the catalog, it will probably be cheaper – since the planning work is already done and the catalog floor plans are also optimized.

If it should be individual, working with the architect and the tendering is not necessarily more expensive than an individual floor plan with the catalog company.
Advantage architect: much more freedom in decisions
Advantage general contractor (GU): you know the price in advance and also have price security with a reputable GU.

Mixed option: free planning with the architect, then have a local GU execute everything at a fixed price.

I am waiting for – he will recommend the architect’s planning and tendering including GU involvement?

GD

We have now asked ourselves what role catalog browsing should play for us. Whether we should "make life easier for ourselves" and modify a few general contractor offers until they basically fit, and then compare

So, in your other thread you come up with a price idea and an idea of what rooms should be in the house.

In the first instance, in my opinion, you have to first look at what is feasible on the plot and with the budget.

If the plot or development plan restricts you, you have to see how to accommodate your needs. For that, you make a few sketches yourself. If, according to the floor area ratio, you are only allowed to build 80 sqm on top (or 165 sqm overall), then you should realistically be able to follow how the desired rooms can be distributed or what simply does not work.
No one can tell you in general whether you can manage with 113 sqm like other families or definitely need 150+ sqm. That is as individual as people and lifestyles are.

If you – and probably also for yourself – don’t do any homework here, you will not be happy with these questions and answers because nothing can be answered universally.

Car example: if you are looking for a 5-seater, it makes no sense to look for a convertible or sports car manufacturer. Likewise, it may be that you do not get along with a practical 6-seater.

Budget: if only €25,000 are available for the new vehicle, then it makes no sense to look at the big class costing €50,000 or more. But who knows, maybe €35,000 are also available.

For you, browsing catalogs helps insofar as to see what “one” generally builds “as standard,” which room sizes one or the other house builder uses in their floor plans. You should also look at room tours or model houses to get a feeling for space.

If you don’t dare to make rough sketches or a calculation, then help yourself with a forum. But then be more direct. Because it cannot be said in general whether x sqm are sufficient or y financing is feasible.

Fact is: if a standard house suffices and is feasible, then a general contractor house is also a good and affordable alternative.
If the plot is “problematic,” for whatever reasons, then an architect with his skills and professional experience can squeeze a bit more house out of it than a prefabricated house from the drawer.

In our circle of acquaintances, we repeatedly hear that they looked for a general contractor who primarily advertises with catalog houses, with whom they could implement their own ideas (partly through minor modifications, partly through significant deviations from the catalog, or even "completely" new plans).

I will be honest, I proceeded this way, it worked, but it does not have to work for others.
I had my approximate room program and a limit of a floor area ratio of a simple plot with apparently optimal orientation.
A bungalow would not have been possible because of the floor area ratio, so I looked for a suitable type house. I still consider that legitimate if you want to build everything from one source. That’s what the internet and catalog mail order are for. I had and have no problem limiting myself to predefined house dimensions. Because you can somehow always get a nice house if you don’t obsess over small desired details and if the plot allows. A standard house can also be furnished to look nicer and function better than an elaborately designed house where the residents don’t do anything with it.
I never dreamed of an Emil-von-Elling house, nor a expensive HUF house, nor do I place much value on the term luxury or villa… and thus I found a down-to-earth regional general contractor whose management and owners are architects who subcontract to regional companies.
Inside, our house is individual, outside rather the type house. But that only works to a limited extent with nationwide general contractors and self-builders.

General contractors were then compared, with price, sympathy/trust, and also the description of the construction services (as far as available and comprehensible to laypeople) playing a role

If there are already experiences in your circle of acquaintances, why don’t you use those experiences?

The question is also: what did they compare there? Apples and pears... yes, you can’t compare, but ultimately, they are both types of fruit with roughly the same vitamin content. However, if I can only afford packed kilo offers from Lidl or Penny, it does bring a little to look at Edeka, but ultimately it will remain Lidl or Penny quality. But they also have organic goods, you just have to look more closely. Transferred to houses: scratch a KfW40+ house, you can live wonderfully in a house with a worse efficiency class – affordable and without uncomfortable restrictions.
If you can live well with 3 apples that only weigh 500 grams and are therefore cheaper at Edeka than the kilo goods at Penny, take those.
Ultimately, most type houses have their reason for existence – whether you have to compare one house 1:1 with another house? Do I prefer an apple or a pear, asks the worm. The worm takes the fruit that is accessible to him. Both taste good.
Of course, whoever tries to argue and mirror the individual price bottom right with the description of the construction services and then equate it will not succeed.

What goes through my mind:
- Quick provision of an offer/house number
- Price range
- Description of construction services
- Organizational effort
- Design freedom vs. being "pressed into a grid"
- Own work
- Trades are well coordinated with each other and, if necessary, with an architect

I personally currently consider all these points to be out of the question.

Quick provision of an offer/house number

For what? Most general contractors go by fixed sqm, matching their type house; a proper offer only comes after an individual design. That only after contract signature. The architect often misses the mark.

Price range

You set that with your financing framework.

Description of construction services

… are usually not all that different. It becomes more individual the more you move down or up in price: cheap house providers save on tile materials, painting work outside walls (stairs, wood cladding), containers, etc. In the high-end segment, extras are usually included and belong to the standard for the pricier provider.

Organizational effort

Whatever you mean by that. But a Regnauer house will probably incur higher transport costs to Hamburg.

Design freedom vs. being "pressed into a grid"

A grid is not wrong per se. Design freedom also costs money. If you have the money, you can also pay attention to design freedom.

Own work

You have to be able to do your own work – in terms of time and skill. With a general contractor who builds “turnkey,” it usually doesn’t pay off financially to remove a trade. Painting and flooring are usually not included in the turnkey offer anyway.

Trades are well coordinated with each other and, if necessary, with an architect

One should assume that initially.

Written a lot, lost some thoughts mentally. Nevertheless: it is one opinion, my opinion, one of many individual opinions you get if you do not define yourself.

If you are a normal family (2 adults, 2 children) and the plot does not have any special demands (slope, rock, swamp), then you can find standard building proposals for almost every wage group, and a freelance architect will not plan anything significantly different to the naked eye. If you overlay the floor plan sets of the homes of the normal families Müller, Meier, and Schulze, the architect’s handwriting is often hardly recognizable, and the wall positions differ by single-digit percentages. Anyone who pays to have a supposed unique piece drawn has too much money and needs good guardian angels so that the construction workers deliver this premiere free of defects. Therefore, my advisees do not insist on having precisely the preliminary design redrawn at a higher resolution but instead research during the > decision-making stage in the > resting phase which provider can offer them which proven house model that deviates how little from this “ideal scale.”

Just as one swallow does not make a summer, one set of computer drawings does not yet make a genuine catalog house. What matters is the appropriate quantity of as closely as possible cloned repetitions of the realized building proposal and, related to this, the temporal density of these repetitions. If someone builds “your” house as specimen number 20, then it benefits from production maturity. If specimens numbers 19 and 18 date from 2023 and 2019, then their final prices are also credible witnesses for the calculation. Having a Krause house built by Huberhaus is as senseless as regarding a set of drawings with zero realizations as a catalog house.

House construction is a team sport. If the craftsmen from the various trades also know each other from the football or shooting club or from the fire brigade, this benefits the quality of the overall work. An architect who knows his gang can be just as suitable as a general contractor acting virtually as a captain-ship owner, as can a master bricklayer and concrete builder (for a stone house) or a master carpenter (for a wooden house). Read also and – in both I explained the general contractor. A craftsman broker can also be a suitable general contractor – I do not do this myself because it is not organizable to the advantage of my building families spread nationwide. Whether bricklayer/carpenter, architect, or broker: a general contractor should definitely be active in the specific region of the building plot. A nationwide (state-wide) operating broker will therefore probably not be a good team captain but only act as a job exchange, possibly only “knowing” his gang members online. An “inviter to tender and fixed-price gambler” would not be an advantage for his clients.

It is important, 1. not to approach a general contractor unadvised and instead of a tender, but to have your construction advisor (/ architect) at your side, and 2. to approach the search for construction companies in two stages. The inquiry sent for the decision-making serves to calibrate the budget-faithful planning and to determine whether in the specific case the stone or wooden path is significantly cheaper / more suitable. It is explicitly not a quarterfinal of a general contractor casting!

I am waiting for @11ant – he will recommend the architect planning and tendering including the general contractor?

As I recommend in my “House Construction Roadmap, also for you: the HOAI phase model!” (also note the “Reloaded” episodes!), to definitely complete Module A with a freelance architect (this is needed like first-aid training for the driving license), never mandate the architect for both halves “in one go,” after Module A definitely carry out the resting phase (best with integrated decision-making), and from the result of the decision-making also derive whether to take the “royal road” Modules B and C or, for example, complete only service phase 3 with the freelance architect and then switch to contractor planning. I wrote about this just yesterday in a reply to a comment on the article “Summary and Outlook” (Part 5 of the roadmap basic series):

Dear Klaus, you can of course switch at any time to the inclusive architect of the general contractor. The two best times for this are “after service phase 3” or “after completing Module C.” In the first case, let the freelance architect complete only service phase 3 after the resting phase; then you have his design with incorporation of the insights from the decision-making.

I know the phases from @11ant, but I suspect there are many who approached building quite differently (whether that is better or worse is debatable; it seems to me to be a given).

Indeed, there are many prospective builders who approached building quite differently; the worst approaches are:
1. starting by approaching the subject via uncoordinated individual question threads, beginning with material and wall thickness issues;
2. following the “lemon picker” myth that prefabricated houses are finished faster and calculable more precisely and solid houses more robust and valuable;
3. perceiving general contractors not as a legal status but as an allegedly independent profession (whereas the misnaming as property developer is rather after the comma);
4. overlooking hinting formulations like “by the builder” and “necessary architect services”;
5. mistaking draftsmen for architects and reinforcement plans for detailed planning;
6. not complementing the contractor’s “site manager” with a self-mandated construction-supervising expert;
7. overlooking that after approved building permit drawings one is only allowed to build, but not necessarily also able;
8. applying the house construction roadmap only if one wants to go the planning way with the architect (and only reading the basic series without the “Reloaded” episodes);
9. inoculating a freelance architect with drawing representations.

Although this list could be endless, shockingly many smart alecks bowl a perfect game right away (often with a bonus number).

some mental lost.

Now I have it again: it speaks for an architect when the plot or the development plan makes something impossible, for which you need the expert knowledge of an architect. He often knows the building authority, the staff there, the residential area (soil) or the city with its characteristics. You can plan overhangs mathematically and not only for the optics, place bay windows or arbitrarily determine roof pitches so that you get more overall use in the given floor area. Although some details cost more, before you despair over the floor area, I would definitely use every anchor and option if the demand is correspondingly higher. The mistake one can make is simply thinking plainly about how to build plainly, but you don’t have to build plainly – it can be quite worthwhile to invest more in a dormer or a corner if it generates living space.

And: I do not want to start a discussion about , but how would this be classified here?)

Strangely, I have read something about this company here more often – as far as I remember, always DH in Hamburg. I’ll give my unsubstantiated opinion: the homepage lacks personality. The concept is not clear to me. Lots of blah blah. The homepage uses quite a few stock photos instead of own ones. The company headquarters is in Vechta. I would question what good the company wants to do for me.