List of prefabricated house companies providers

If the planner is not paid directly by you, but is an employee of the construction company, he naturally has a conflict of interest. The same also applies to the site manager. This does not necessarily have to be a problem, but it can be.

Yes, exactly. I fear that these architects (there are now three that I have identified – two of them “hide” it somewhat – the other advertises it more openly) will then not plan unbiasedly,

Apparently, the architects from "a better Place" were meant here (who, I believe, are five or more in total).

but rather plan a floor plan similar to a sales representative, making it especially convenient for the house provider. So I am paying for someone who is not independent (at least that is my fear)?

The fear is understandable, and if the planner is affiliated with the manufacturer, I would always bring in a neutral consultant. Basically, with both construction methods, houses can be built on-site or prefabricated. Masonry built on-site houses ("stone on stone") are the most universally plannable category insofar as knowledge of planning is distributed evenly and broadly across the entire architectural profession. For "prefab" houses, whether masonry or timber-frame construction, the systems differ, and the planner should be trained and experienced in the peculiarities of the respective system. It is rare that several "prefab" house manufacturers select the same building application correspondence architect for themselves. Conversely, only a few architects invest the time to attend the system-specific training of several "prefab" house manufacturers. Within the timber-frame panel faction (which concerns the vast majority of providers and brands on the "prefab" house market), the basic principles of construction are largely comparable so that a house in its planning is not very manufacturer-specific. If the architect thinks in the system of Meierhaus, his plans are usually still implementable for a build with Schulzehaus with significantly fewer adjustments than if an architect rooted in masonry planning had planned it. The biggest difference in construction philosophy lies firstly in the installation layer (simplified: with or without) and in the spacing of the girders most often mistakenly referred to as "studs." The majority of the industry prefers 625 mm, the others mostly 833 mm as the normal axis spacing. So two and a half meters divided into four or three equal steps. I generally recommend coordination between the planning person of the building couple and the manufacturer’s construction department for "prefab" houses. Here it is logically advantageous if the planner has completed manufacturer-specific training. And here I also see an advantage for the customer in leaning toward that manufacturer whose system specifics the planner has the most practice with, if in doubt. The shorter the "line of communication" between external and internal planning participants, the more likely the house will succeed. I do not see the fundamental freedom of the building couple to go to Schulzehaus as a customer with the architect most experienced with Meierhaus’s design hindered. Regarding the aspect of conflict of interest, however, I would always recommend speaking openly, i.e., I would insist that you always handle that transparently. That a sales partnership also results from the architect having already accompanied many building couples to a house manufacturer, I would consider a "natural occurrence" and not fundamentally questionable. The main thing is happy customers as the result, and for monitoring the decency of the closeness between architect and house manufacturer, there are, after all, independent but in doubt client-side consultants.

Well, timber frame construction is not just timber frame construction. There are "cheap" versions, or "first class" ones. Like a stud frame without an installation level, with plastic foil and then ETICS on the outside, or with an installation level, a diffusion-open wall structure and a ventilated façade. In the best case, then with wood fiber, cellulose, something along those lines. If timber frame construction is established, I would first look at the wall structure and then proceed...

Well, timber frame construction is not just timber frame construction.

That's right, and no one claimed otherwise. But the OP was recently specifically concerned with the aspect of how useful a wooden planner could still be if they are brand-loyal.

There are "cheap" versions, or "first class" [...] I would, if timber frame construction is given, first take a look at the wall structure and then proceed...

The architect will basically not see the wall structure as a black box either, although it actually still is one in service phase 3.

So studwork without an installation level, with plastic foil and then external ETICS, or with installation level, diffusion-open wall structure, and ventilated façade. In the best case then with wood fiber, cellulose, something like that.

I already said that the philosophical confession of whether "separate installation level or not" makes a difference that can disrupt the transferability of a plan. In this respect, I assume that my example manufacturers Meierhaus and Schulzehaus belong to the same faction. Whether sausage or cheese foil, chocolate or raspberry insulation is irrelevant here because it does not shift a single window opening, nor affect ceiling spans and so forth. Here the advantage remains to take a non-stone architect for a wooden house, so fully preserved. The timber frame panel builders practically invented the thermal insulation integral system; a thermal insulation composite system has no place in timber frame panel construction. Here, I would draw the borderline gray area between "economy" and "wannabe with fake ascendant."

In the low-cost range, there are quite a few who slap styrofoam onto the wall. And with the wall thicknesses common today, it is probably no longer so simple to hold the mineral wool in its cavities. Schwörerhaus has added a second thinner stud frame to the EH40 walls, Weberhaus even has a wood fiberboard on top of that.

Basically, in both construction methods, houses can be built on-site or prefabricated. Stone on-site built houses ("brick by brick") are the most universally plannable category in the sense that the knowledge about planning is evenly and broadly distributed across the entire architectural profession. For "prefab" houses, whether stone or timber frame construction, systems differ, and the planner should be trained and experienced in the peculiarities of the respective system. It is rare for multiple "prefab" house manufacturers to choose the same permit application correspondence architect for themselves. Conversely, only a few architects invest the time to attend the system-specific training of several "prefab" house manufacturers.

First of all: thanks to all of you for your answers! Now, however, I still ask myself the question: how can the course be set if I have already planned with an architect who tends to plan in the direction of timber? Doesn't the "entire floor plan" change again because of the wall thicknesses?