New building shell construction selection: Choose a company or architects?

Preliminary discussions are held.

The problem I see is: whoever already chooses the wrong words in thoughtful writing in the forum, how will it be with the experts later, who are being made fun of here.
At least, that’s how it reads, and that is not a good basis for negotiations, to treat good entrepreneurs condescendingly, as if they needed it or were of little value.

Especially when such a construction project for owner-occupiers is always one of the most expensive and important projects in the course of further life.

That is precisely why many here (including myself) find the idea of having the tender + related documents for the trades completely self-made, without an architect, to be pure Harakiri. Even if you only click together finished tender texts, it completely goes wrong.

That’s exactly why many here (including myself) find the idea of having the tender + related documents for the trades created entirely as in-house work, without an architect, totally harakiri. Even if you just click together finished tender texts, it completely goes wrong.

So that doesn’t quite fit here. I specifically wrote that the sketch is to be adjusted later after awarding the contract by a construction company with its team, i.e. architect and structural engineer, or in the other case by an architect, and of course that the construction is then refined in detail. It’s clear even to me that the sketch can’t serve as a basis for a house. So as I said, comparison is very important to me personally. Of course, the comparison also includes qualitative criteria, just to make that clear. What is questionable and probably problematic is what I can compare for free. It seems to be the case, as it appears from many posts, that the information only becomes available after signing the contract. That’s a pig in a poke. Let’s see if that is really the case.

Not after the contract is signed. But the good ones only for money.

If you have a plot of land, a development plan, and a program (two-family house, so many sqm, 3.5 rooms + 4.5 rooms for example), give that to two architects with the request for proposals. It costs something, but it will help you move forward and this way you can compare well.

So first of all to calibrate the dimensions: Your construction project is small and (unless it’s a triangular plot) standard. Speaking in the popular car comparison, a white Polo and not a Q7 with all the bells and whistles, for which the car dealer of course takes more time.

Es überrascht mich doch sehr, dass hier keiner Vorgespräche als selbstverständlich erachtet.

The problem is people – and what you write here does not distance you from them – who take it for granted to test professionals casually. No freelancer can support their family by extensively swirling cognac with people who collect preliminary talks like travel brochures.

Preliminary talks with credit towards the commission should be no problem, but “free” really only means a coffee, and enough time to drink it. Having already taken a look at the development plan is already a qualified service. That is not available for free – there’s only the “Good day Mr. Client, what do you want, do we have the right chemistry, and what does your bank say about your dreams.”

Such details as which stone infill are “features” that identify the test-magazine junkie, but not relevant basics for a planning conversation. If the architect looks at the calendar after the permit is granted, Rohbauer Schmidt has time and can best work with Ytong, then you don’t wait four months for Rohbauer Meier, who knows more about Poroton. With due respect, those are nonsense criteria for clueless people who have read too many comparison tables. Practitioners in daily business don’t waste time on that.

If your wife says, my husband snores so loudly we need separate bedrooms, that is a point where the architect plans your otherwise standard house differently. Or if the development plan says a maximum of 87 cm knee wall.

I can understand that it takes effort. Let's see how people react when I call and probe there. From my point of view, it is simply the case that I have an ideal plot of land with an exact southern orientation. Ground level and relatively rectangular, rather longer than wide. Enough space for neighboring construction even if I planned with 20 sqm width. With my own building plan, I am well below the restrictions set by the development plan, especially since the plot has a large area. Besides, I don't need any help from the architect in reading the development plan here. Incidentally, I myself have concrete ideas about the living area and the design of the living space; in particular, I created a floor plan sketch with area measurements in about 30 hours after looking at numerous floor plans of houses of the same size and having carefully considered my own requirements and those of the individual trades. In particular, there are also buffers for individual trades in case they turn out to be larger or if the load-bearing wall becomes wider or if there is the possibility of expanding the building area. Of course, this raises the question for me, if I use this sketch along with the area and height calculations, where the service of an architect is in direct comparison to the construction company with its team (they can also work out the later details with their architects). It is relatively different compared to the customer who has no concrete ideas yet and possibly has a difficult plot, whether due to the location or the building restrictions. In such cases, the high art of an architect is certainly often required. Furthermore, my ideas in the partial trades are quite precise. It is then simply the case that no one can tell me exactly how it will turn out and what I should still prepare for the first conversation or for an initial inquiry. Nevertheless, the criticism here has helped me progress somewhat and also motivated me to specifically read up in other places on the internet or here in the forum. Many thanks for that.