GU, customer service and communication extremely frustrating

With our trades, we can make short-term changes as long as they have no impact on the building application or structural engineering. [...] Additional costs are then billed directly to us by the trade.

Some homeowners may find this practical, but legally it is actually improper: both parties bypass their respective actual contractual partner in such a "short circuit." Formally, at least consent should be obtained from that partner, but often he receives no notification for his records. This is the root of inconsistencies between order, delivery note, invoice, acceptance, and ultimately also warranty. Later, a general contractor is supposed to be responsible for something that contractor and subcontractor agreed upon immediately between themselves. Legally, the homeowner is a "third party" who (even if pragmatically seen as the "beneficial owner" of the whole project) "unauthorizedly" executes a change termination of the contract for work between contractor and subcontractor. Lawyers as homeowners prefer to avoid disputes privately; but anyone who deals with a general contractor in the person of an administrative lawyer or senior teacher quickly loses tolerance, acceptance, or even promotion of such "short routes."

A general contractor nowadays should actually give every homeowner a checkbook containing three checks for one change ticket each; if unused and returned, there is a discount, and every additional one costs an extra thousand euros on top of the actual change costs (or even two thousand euros extra if the relevant construction phase has already started). Apparently, this is the only way to motivate spoiled brats to behave like commercially responsible adults ;-)

And if someone wants to have someone they can almost always call, it is best to build with an architect. If he is also a construction foreman, he is on the construction site every day and has the answering of questions included in his fee.

And if someone wants to have someone they can almost always call, it is best to build with an architect. If the architect is also a construction manager, he is on the construction site every day and has answering questions included in his fee.

There is a lot of truth in that: those who build with an architect get full service all inclusive instead of turnkey. Those who build with a general contractor simply do not have AI!

There is a lot of truth in that: whoever builds with an architect gets full service all inclusive instead of turnkey. Whoever builds with a general contractor simply does not have AI!

However, one must not overlook the financial risk with an architect. Because an architect can do everything except calculate. And if the budget is already tight, it will be miscalculated with the architect.

I cannot share the experience. We are also building with a regional general contractor. We can reach our site manager very well both by phone and by email. For "this or that" decisions, he gives feedback when he considers it appropriate or stays out of it when he "has to". Any work that has to be carried out differently than planned is explained meticulously and comprehensibly, so that we also feel very well supported with smaller replannings.

One must not overlook the financial risk with the architect.

That is exactly right. But the clients confuse the term turnkey or "everything from one source" with an exclusive service.