List of prefabricated house companies providers

How do you determine that? By the many pretty pictures on the internet/catalog? By the casually mentioned equipment variants? I only looked at 2 of the above. One builds without an installation layer, the other builds the super-duper wall without saying how it is constructed. Of course, they are all eco-friendly, whatever that means. The connoisseur turns away. Finish, yes, you can tip your hat to that, but at the end of the day, these are systems that are sold and to which you are bound once you sign. I plead for planning plus a small carpenter, which is of course a bit more elaborate, but in the end it results in a better outcome. One must not forget one thing: salespeople cost money, show homes cost money, catalogs cost money, and so on and so forth. My opinion.

Thank you, Rübe1! How should I understand your statement: That none of the known prefabricated house providers build properly, or was it referring to the ones I mentioned? I am still quite early in choosing the providers and have only listed these names based on reports/experiences. Because they all seem to have fairly good wall constructions overall. Whether they really do, of course I will only see when there is a draft of the contract for work, you are right about that. Therefore, I am also looking for the list to better familiarize myself with the topic.

Thank you very much @11ant! These are very helpful details for me. I have only been active in the forum for a few days and have already found and read so many posts from you that have helped me a lot – your website is also great!

I’m glad to read that – but it still benefits you too little if you don’t take the next step (see Services: "The way to personal advice"). Have you already followed my reading tips from post #4?

My question about the list was rather due to the fact that I simply don’t have an overview yet regarding which companies I should even approach. For example, that a Massa house is out was "always" clear to me. But for example : also seems affordable, but still good in terms of price-performance ratio. This overview would be very helpful for a layperson. [...] Am I on the right track here or do you have additional names I should look at or should cross out here? [...] Therefore, names in the upper mid-range would be particularly relevant for me to look at. Currently on my list are: Rensch-Haus, Streif Haus, Büdenbender, , Schwörerhaus, Weberhaus, Fingerhut. [...] I am still at the very beginning of choosing providers and have only listed these names based on reports/experience since they apparently all have quite good wall constructions. [...] That’s why I am also looking for the list to better familiarize myself with the topic.

You have already seen that I like to offer a wealth of useful information even "before the paywall." If I (after over forty years of market observation) saw even a spark of real benefit for readers in such a list, it would have been there long ago (and would certainly bring me a lot of interest as well). But I prefer to offer real benefit rather than the (disappointing) illusion of a benefit. Therefore, I gladly dispense with such a supposedly helpful tool, which unfortunately does not lead to a delicious cake in a layman’s oven.
Should I understand your reference to "the upper mid-range" as an answer to the question of which wage group your base of expectations can be set? – then the question remains open as to what degree of completion (shell or shell house, almost finished, move-in ready, etc.) fits your manual skills (and available time for self-performance).

Maybe one could also shorten it: I don’t want the most expensive of the expensive (no luxury), but just good building fabric.

A house is not a granola bar; studying the ingredient list for the wall construction won’t really get you anywhere here. And the usual comparison tests with criteria like fuel consumption, trunk volume, acceleration, turning circle, etc., are more for passing time than for gaining insight.

I advocate planning plus a small carpenter; it’s of course a bit more elaborate, but ultimately the better result comes out. One must not forget one thing: salespeople cost money, show homes cost money, catalogs cost money, and so on and so forth. In my opinion.

Providing consulting expertise always costs money, regardless of whether that takes place in show homes. And customer communication requires the same effort whether the boss "handles it where he’s already there" or delegates it to sales consultants employed specifically for this task. And catalogs themselves do not cost more money, but rather the (also sales-psychological) glossy finish and the lawyers behind them to keep the most flowery promises still non-binding and meaningless. In price-gouging optimization, there is surely a large price component in the big names everywhere. And I also see a more forceful integrity, not least among owner-managed medium-sized companies, as honorable business partners. Still, I mostly recommend limiting the regional idea to the Steiner group, since the "small" carpenters (certainly not all, but in my observation mostly) are at a level comparable to the nationally known prefab house builders in their infancy (which those had mostly outgrown back in the 70s).
In the end, I would not include any "small" providers on the carpenter side in the selection for setting the course but rather limit regionality to the Steiner group. If the result of the course setting tends toward a "wooden" house, then in a second round of finding providers you can also involve the "small" providers. That’s how I do it (if anyone still knows the advertising slogan "... recommended by the dentist to his family").

I'm glad to read that mich - but it still doesn't help Dir enough if you don't take the next step (see services: "The way to personal advice"). Have you already followed my reading tips from post #4?

That's me. I'm currently reading almost everything here that could be relevant. I now understand the "short" path of module A (my own assessment). What I don't understand yet: If the choice falls on a timber builder, don't they all always include the architect's service from performance phase 4 onwards?

Should I read your reference to "the upper midfield" as an answer to the question in which wage group your claim basis can be set? - then the question would still be open as to which degree of completion (shell construction or finish house, almost finished, move-in ready, etc.) fits your manual skills (and time available for self-performance).

Yes, absolutely. I thought I had already expressed that with a 750k budget (without land). That should (hopefully) be enough for the upper midfield. Don’t you think?

In the end, I wouldn’t include any "small" providers on the timber side in the selection for the key decision, but rather limit the regionality to the masonry builders. If the result of the key decision leans towards a "wooden" house, one can then involve the "small" providers in the second provider-finding round. At least that’s how I do it (if anyone still knows the advertising slogan "... recommended by the dentist to his family").

That’s how I had planned it too. We wanted a regional masonry builder and possibly something like Viebrockhaus in the selection.

That’s me. I’m currently reading almost everything here that could be relevant somehow. I now understand the "short" path of Module A (my own assessment).

I don’t know if you have really understood it. You spoke of service phases 1 to 3. I would advise against shortening that (that would only mean Module A), but merely to insert an "active pause" in the process: so Module A and then the resting phase with decision-making; after this at least service phase 3 should definitely follow ...

What I still don’t understand: If the choice falls on a timber builder, don’t they all always have the architect’s service included from service phase 4 onwards?

... however: if the decision-making “result” is to build more economically with a masonry-on-masonry method, then you would accordingly not only let the architect do service phase 3, but the entire Module B thereafter. That is why the decision-making is not only between continuing with timber or masonry, but simultaneously also between "Module A – resting phase – service phase 3" or "Module A – resting phase – full Module B." (Also) for this reason, resting phase and decision-making belong together (completed). If the process continues with a "prefabricated house" provider (panel manufacturer, whether timber frame or masonry), I agree with the "prefab house expert" that to avoid redundant work, service phase 4 should already be carried out by this provider. This variation was the main motivation to expand the house-building schedule with explanations of the "deviations." According to the reader dialogues, this was/is clearly the most eagerly awaited answer on how to deal with the differences in possible results of the decision-making.

Yes, absolutely. I thought I had already expressed that with a 750k budget (without land). That should (hopefully) be enough for the upper mid-range. Don’t you think?

That should be sufficient for a shell house for a significantly higher level, and “ready to move in” indeed for an upper mid-range, yes.

That’s how I had planned it as well. We wanted to include a regional mason and possibly something like Viebrockhaus in the selection.

Viebrockhaus would then fit very well as, in my opinion, the ideal comparison opponent from the opposite building method shore Gussek Haus. Have we already talked about the “region”?

But having a proper overview of wall construction / thicknesses at a glance would be great.

No, it doesn’t exist.
Who should create something like that? It’s not inherently bad what a building company does differently. Sometimes the materials differ only by a hair, so they suggest an "innovative construction method," all marketing.
What’s more important is that the KfW40 standard construction, for example, is executed cleanly – without defects or thermal bridges (and the like).

We tend to go for a prefabricated house (but will also include 2 solid construction companies in the tender).

Look, for example here, it seems your gut feeling (or rubbish from the internet?) led to this decision?! That is basically not wrong.
Others tend towards solid construction – that too is basically not wrong. Because there is no right or wrong.

I don’t want the most expensive of the expensive (no luxury), but rather simply a good building substance. Therefore, names in the upper middle field would be relevant for me to look at. Currently on my list are: Rensch-Haus, Streif Haus, Büdenbender, , Schwörerhaus, Weberhaus, Fingerhut. Am I on the right track there?

With a question mark behind it, I would say: yes, you are wrong if you only rely on the market leaders or the first 10 hits of Google ads and the house price on the internet.

But for example : seems to be cheap but still good value for the money. That overview would be very helpful for a layperson.

Danwood has great architects and ideas. The Polish crews do good and fast work. They are not cheap if you consider that many things are fixed (e.g., windows under the eaves on the upper floor) and every single detail is a special feature, and not everything is possible.

Maybe you can also shorten this process.

I think developing a feel for something or “gathering experience,” even if only through self-research, creating your own tables, setting your own priorities, no one can take that away from you. Because the questions always come up anyway: why (is it done), how (is it done), and what for (is it done). Why doesn’t everyone do it the same way? What is better? Answer: nothing is better; no Porsche is better than a Smart or Passat, no electric better than diesel, because everyone has their target group, even if only regional.

I don’t really like this car comparison, but it is what it is: all cars can drive, one needs it for long distance, another for the city. Then it should look good to one, while another doesn’t care, one values comfort equipment or expansion packages, another the own configuration. One needs two seats, another needs seven. Then you have to weigh the price, the external circumstances decide for convertible, all-wheel-drive, or pitched roof with lots of photovoltaics, and in the end, you sign the purchase contract.

I also have the feeling, for example

Currently still us. We would then like to hand it over to an for service phases 1-3 and then go to general contractors / prefabricated house companies.

Smart decision, although I’m also a fan of type houses if you don’t have extraordinary demands. And if you do, you can live that out well in the interior finish.

We as builders would then approach these companies specifically.

What keeps you from simply addressing the architect regarding experience? He is your first professional and regional contact person – and with that, his entire network.

Timber frame construction can be done well by good carpenters – within a radius of 50km/100km, you will surely find one whose finished houses you can view live. I would also just take a look in building areas and see who has built there. If a new development area is being built, you meet the craftspeople on weekdays and the builders on weekends. These impressions and conversations are worth more than just sitting behind a PC all the time. Here you have builders who can’t even mentally sketch their rectangular plot with surroundings – not because they necessarily can’t draw, but because they never got out of their car during the 3 visits.
You can feel walls and impressions!

So, another answer since my answer from yesterday was deleted. It's not so easy to stick to the rules here.

I don't know if you understood that. You talked about service phases 1 to 3. I advise against shortening that (that would only mean Module A), but just to insert an "active pause" into the process: so Module A and then the dough resting time with the setting of the dough; after this then certainly at least service phase 3 ...

You are right, I think I hadn’t quite understood it properly yet. There is also a partner site of the expert you named that "mediates" architects. Can you trust something like that or how else do you get a good expert who regularly builds prefabricated houses? I am concerned that the architects there only do service phases 1-3, and that was an indication from you for architects who are rather not cost-faithful.

That should suffice for an expansion house at a significantly higher level, and "move-in ready" indeed for an upper middle range, yes.

Sorry, I totally forgot to answer that! So it should be a turnkey house since I have little time and knowledge for finishing work. Thanks also for the other provider tip regarding Steinler. I hadn’t had them on my radar.

The region is Alzey, Rhineland-Palatinate